PURPOSE: To investigate the visual outcomes between mix-and-match bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) (ReSTOR +2.50 and +3.00 diopters [D]; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) versus bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL (FineVision; PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). METHODS:Twenty-three patients (average age: 56.3 ± 6.9 years; range: 45 to 71 years) referred for lens phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. The FineVision group was bilaterally implanted with the FineVision trifocal IOL and the ReSTOR group was implanted with mix-and-match bifocal ReSTOR +2.50 and +3.00 D IOLs. A 3-month postoperative check was performed, and manifest refraction and logMAR uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance and near visual acuities were recorded. Monocular and binocular defocus curve testing was performed under photopic (85 cd/m2) conditions in 0.50-D defocus steps. Contrast sensitivity was measured monocularly and binocularly under mesopic conditions at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree using the CSV-1000 contrast test (VectorVision, Greenville, OH). RESULTS: There were no reported differences in monocular distance visual acuity or refractive outcomes between groups (P > .05). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity between the three IOLs (P > .05). The FineVision group achieved better monocular and binocular near and intermediate visual acuities under defocus curve testing than the ReSTOR group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Binocular implantation of the FineVision trifocal IOL provided a better range of visual acuities at near and intermediate distances than mix-and-match bifocal IOL implantation. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(10):659-663.]. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate the visual outcomes between mix-and-match bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) (ReSTOR +2.50 and +3.00 diopters [D]; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) versus bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL (FineVision; PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). METHODS: Twenty-three patients (average age: 56.3 ± 6.9 years; range: 45 to 71 years) referred for lens phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. The FineVision group was bilaterally implanted with the FineVision trifocal IOL and the ReSTOR group was implanted with mix-and-match bifocal ReSTOR +2.50 and +3.00 D IOLs. A 3-month postoperative check was performed, and manifest refraction and logMAR uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance and near visual acuities were recorded. Monocular and binocular defocus curve testing was performed under photopic (85 cd/m2) conditions in 0.50-D defocus steps. Contrast sensitivity was measured monocularly and binocularly under mesopic conditions at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree using the CSV-1000 contrast test (VectorVision, Greenville, OH). RESULTS: There were no reported differences in monocular distance visual acuity or refractive outcomes between groups (P > .05). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity between the three IOLs (P > .05). The FineVision group achieved better monocular and binocular near and intermediate visual acuities under defocus curve testing than the ReSTOR group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Binocular implantation of the FineVision trifocal IOL provided a better range of visual acuities at near and intermediate distances than mix-and-match bifocal IOL implantation. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(10):659-663.]. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Diego Zamora-de La Cruz; Karla Zúñiga-Posselt; John Bartlett; Mario Gutierrez; Samuel A Abariga Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-18
Authors: Joaquín Fernández; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo; Javier Martínez; Ana Tauste; David P Piñero Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 1.909