METHODS: Data sources, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, were used to identify potentially relevant randomized controlled trials. Eight qualified studies incorporating 1,242 eyes of 621 patients were analyzed using Rev- Manager version 5.2 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, England). The primary measures included uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity. Reading ability, spectacle independence, and occurrence of photic phenomena were also addressed. RESULTS: The refractive MIOL group exhibited better uncorrected distance visual acuity than the diffractive MIOL group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06 to -0.02, P < .01). However, the diffractive MIOL group performed better than the refractive MIOL group in uncorrected near visual acuity, reading acuity, reading speed, smallest print size, spectacle independence, halo, and glare rate (WMD = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.17, P < .01; WMD = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.19, P < .01; WMD = -24.14, 95% CI: -43.56 to -4.72, P = .01; WMD = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.69, P < .01; WMD = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.70, P < .01; WMD = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.93, P = .002; WMD = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.75, P = .006, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups in uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (WMD = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.00, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Refractive MIOLs can provide better distance vision, whereas diffractive MIOLs provide better near vision, reading ability, and equivalent intermediate vision, reduce unwanted photic phenomena, and allow greater spectacle independence.
METHODS: Data sources, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, were used to identify potentially relevant randomized controlled trials. Eight qualified studies incorporating 1,242 eyes of 621 patients were analyzed using Rev- Manager version 5.2 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, England). The primary measures included uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity. Reading ability, spectacle independence, and occurrence of photic phenomena were also addressed. RESULTS: The refractive MIOL group exhibited better uncorrected distance visual acuity than the diffractive MIOL group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06 to -0.02, P < .01). However, the diffractive MIOL group performed better than the refractive MIOL group in uncorrected near visual acuity, reading acuity, reading speed, smallest print size, spectacle independence, halo, and glare rate (WMD = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.17, P < .01; WMD = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.19, P < .01; WMD = -24.14, 95% CI: -43.56 to -4.72, P = .01; WMD = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.69, P < .01; WMD = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.70, P < .01; WMD = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.93, P = .002; WMD = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.75, P = .006, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups in uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (WMD = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.00, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Refractive MIOLs can provide better distance vision, whereas diffractive MIOLs provide better near vision, reading ability, and equivalent intermediate vision, reduce unwanted photic phenomena, and allow greater spectacle independence.
Authors: Asieh Golozar; Yujiang Chen; Kristina Lindsley; Benjamin Rouse; David C Musch; Flora Lum; Barbara S Hawkins; Tianjing Li Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389