Ana B Plaza-Puche1, Jorge L Alio1,2, Esperanza Sala1, Peter Mojzis3. 1. Vissum Alicante, Alicante - Spain. 2. Division of Ophthalmology, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante - Spain. 3. Eye Department, Regional Hospital, Havlickuv Brod - Czech Republic.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the low mesopic contrast sensitivity function (LMCSF) of patients implanted with different modern optical bifocal and trifocal designs of multifocal intraocular lenses (mfIOLs). METHODS: This prospective, comparative, nonrandomized consecutive case series included 180 eyes that underwent cataract surgery. Six groups of eyes were differentiated: group A, eyes with the diffractive AT LISA tri 839MP; group B, eyes with diffractive FineVision; group C, eyes with the bifocal Lentis Mplus-LS313; group D, eyes with the diffractive bifocal Acri.Lisa 366D; group E, eyes with the diffractive apodized Acrysof ReSTOR SN6AD1; group F, as the control group, implanted with a monofocal spherical intraocular lens. The LMCSF was evaluated with the OPTEC® 6500 device at 3 months postoperatively using a luminance of 3 cd/m2. RESULTS: No significant differences among groups were detected in LMCSF for the spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 cpd (1.5 cpd: F = 1.81, p = 0.13; 3.0 cpd: F = 1.14, p = 0.14; 6.0 cpd: F = 1.87, p = 0.11; 12.0 cpd: F = 1.26, p = 0.29), but significant differences were found among groups for the spatial frequency of 18 cpd (F = 2.62, p = 0.03). When comparing the groups in pairs, only statistically significant differences were observed between groups E and F for the spatial frequency of 18.0 cpd (t = 3.27, p = 0.03) with better values for group F. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed in LMCSF among the different mfIOLs studied. The third focus of trifocal IOL models did not adversely affect the LMCSF. The ReSTOR SN6AD1 showed the poorest LMCSF for the highest spatial frequency analyzed when compared with the control group.
PURPOSE: To investigate the low mesopic contrast sensitivity function (LMCSF) of patients implanted with different modern optical bifocal and trifocal designs of multifocal intraocular lenses (mfIOLs). METHODS: This prospective, comparative, nonrandomized consecutive case series included 180 eyes that underwent cataract surgery. Six groups of eyes were differentiated: group A, eyes with the diffractive AT LISA tri 839MP; group B, eyes with diffractive FineVision; group C, eyes with the bifocal Lentis Mplus-LS313; group D, eyes with the diffractive bifocal Acri.Lisa 366D; group E, eyes with the diffractive apodized Acrysof ReSTOR SN6AD1; group F, as the control group, implanted with a monofocal spherical intraocular lens. The LMCSF was evaluated with the OPTEC® 6500 device at 3 months postoperatively using a luminance of 3 cd/m2. RESULTS: No significant differences among groups were detected in LMCSF for the spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 cpd (1.5 cpd: F = 1.81, p = 0.13; 3.0 cpd: F = 1.14, p = 0.14; 6.0 cpd: F = 1.87, p = 0.11; 12.0 cpd: F = 1.26, p = 0.29), but significant differences were found among groups for the spatial frequency of 18 cpd (F = 2.62, p = 0.03). When comparing the groups in pairs, only statistically significant differences were observed between groups E and F for the spatial frequency of 18.0 cpd (t = 3.27, p = 0.03) with better values for group F. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed in LMCSF among the different mfIOLs studied. The third focus of trifocal IOL models did not adversely affect the LMCSF. The ReSTOR SN6AD1 showed the poorest LMCSF for the highest spatial frequency analyzed when compared with the control group.