PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes with an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL based on achromatic diffractive technology. METHODS: This was a prospective comparative study including 80 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the monofocal Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 30 eyes of 15 patients) or the ERV Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (ERV group: 50 eyes of 25 patients). Visual, refractive, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, ocular optical quality (Optical Quality Analysis System; Visiometrics SL, Terrassa, Spain), and quality of life (National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 Questionnaire) outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Significantly better postoperative uncorrected monocular and binocular distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were found in the ERV group (P ≥ .013). Postoperative spherical equivalent was within ±1.00 diopters in 94% and 100% of eyes in the ERV and the monofocal groups, respectively. Binocular UIVA and UNVA of 0.20 or better (Snellen 20/30) were observed in all cases in the ERV group and in 13.3% and 6.7% of eyes of the monofocal group, respectively. No significant differences among groups were observed in contrast sensitivity (P ≥ .156) or ocular optical quality parameters (P ≥ .084). In the monocular defocus curve, all visual acuities were better in the ERV group (P ≤ .002), except for the +0.50-diopter defocus level (P = .367). Significantly better scores were obtained for dependence on correction (P = .003) and suboptimal correction (P = .038) subscales in the ERV group. CONCLUSIONS: The extended range of vision IOL provides better distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity than the aspheric monofocal IOL, while maintaining the same level of visual quality. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(7):436-442.]. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes with an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL based on achromatic diffractive technology. METHODS: This was a prospective comparative study including 80 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the monofocal Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 30 eyes of 15 patients) or the ERV Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (ERV group: 50 eyes of 25 patients). Visual, refractive, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, ocular optical quality (Optical Quality Analysis System; Visiometrics SL, Terrassa, Spain), and quality of life (National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 Questionnaire) outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Significantly better postoperative uncorrected monocular and binocular distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were found in the ERV group (P ≥ .013). Postoperative spherical equivalent was within ±1.00 diopters in 94% and 100% of eyes in the ERV and the monofocal groups, respectively. Binocular UIVA and UNVA of 0.20 or better (Snellen 20/30) were observed in all cases in the ERV group and in 13.3% and 6.7% of eyes of the monofocal group, respectively. No significant differences among groups were observed in contrast sensitivity (P ≥ .156) or ocular optical quality parameters (P ≥ .084). In the monocular defocus curve, all visual acuities were better in the ERV group (P ≤ .002), except for the +0.50-diopter defocus level (P = .367). Significantly better scores were obtained for dependence on correction (P = .003) and suboptimal correction (P = .038) subscales in the ERV group. CONCLUSIONS: The extended range of vision IOL provides better distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity than the aspheric monofocal IOL, while maintaining the same level of visual quality. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(7):436-442.]. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Joaquín Fernández; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo; Javier Martínez; Ana Tauste; David P Piñero Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 1.909