Jie Lan1, Yu-Sen Huang2, Yun-Hai Dai2, Xiao-Ming Wu2, Jia-Jun Sun2, Li-Xin Xie2. 1. Qingdao University Medical College, Qingdao 266071, Shandong Province, China; Qingdao Eye Hospital, Shandong Eye Institute, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Qingdao 266071, Shandong Province, China. 2. Qingdao Eye Hospital, Shandong Eye Institute, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Qingdao 266071, Shandong Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the visual functional outcomes with accommodating and multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Our retrospective comparative study included 51 patients (60 eyes) received implantation of an accommodating IOL (Tetraflex; 16 patients, 20 eyes), a refractive multifocal IOL (ReZoom; 18 patients, 20 eyes), or a diffractive multifocal IOL (ZMA00; 17 patients, 20 eyes). Subjective refraction, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), intraocular aberration, and subjective photic phenomena were detected at 3mo after surgery. RESULTS: The spherical equivalent in the three groups was -0.38±0.54 D, 0.14±0.56 D, and 0.35±0.41 D, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity among the groups (P=0.39). The ReZoom group had significantly better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity than the ZMA00 group (P=0.003). The ZMA00 group had significantly better near visual acuity than the other groups (P<0.05). Better contrast sensitivity values were observed in the Tetraflex group under most of the spatial frequencies conditions (P=0.025). The total aberration was lowest in the ZMA00 group (P=0.000), and the spherical aberration was highest in the Tetraflex group (P=0.000). The three groups had similar frequency of ghosting and glare, and the Tetraflex group had a low rate of halos (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Both accommodating and multifocal IOLs can successfully restore distance and uncorrected intermediate visual acuities. Tetraflex accommodating IOLs perform better in CS and with less halos of photic phenomena. ReZoom refractive multifocal IOLs have better performance in distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity than ZMA00 diffractive multifocal IOLs, and the latter achieved better near visual acuity and efficiently decreased the optical aberration.
AIM: To compare the visual functional outcomes with accommodating and multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Our retrospective comparative study included 51 patients (60 eyes) received implantation of an accommodating IOL (Tetraflex; 16 patients, 20 eyes), a refractive multifocal IOL (ReZoom; 18 patients, 20 eyes), or a diffractive multifocal IOL (ZMA00; 17 patients, 20 eyes). Subjective refraction, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), intraocular aberration, and subjective photic phenomena were detected at 3mo after surgery. RESULTS: The spherical equivalent in the three groups was -0.38±0.54 D, 0.14±0.56 D, and 0.35±0.41 D, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity among the groups (P=0.39). The ReZoom group had significantly better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity than the ZMA00 group (P=0.003). The ZMA00 group had significantly better near visual acuity than the other groups (P<0.05). Better contrast sensitivity values were observed in the Tetraflex group under most of the spatial frequencies conditions (P=0.025). The total aberration was lowest in the ZMA00 group (P=0.000), and the spherical aberration was highest in the Tetraflex group (P=0.000). The three groups had similar frequency of ghosting and glare, and the Tetraflex group had a low rate of halos (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Both accommodating and multifocal IOLs can successfully restore distance and uncorrected intermediate visual acuities. Tetraflex accommodating IOLs perform better in CS and with less halos of photic phenomena. ReZoom refractive multifocal IOLs have better performance in distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity than ZMA00 diffractive multifocal IOLs, and the latter achieved better near visual acuity and efficiently decreased the optical aberration.
Authors: J S Wolffsohn; S A Naroo; N K Motwani; S Shah; O A Hunt; S Mantry; M Sira; I A Cunliffe; M T Benson Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2006-03-10 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Jay S Pepose; Mujtaba A Qazi; James Davies; John F Doane; James C Loden; Varunan Sivalingham; Ashraf M Mahmoud Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jorge L Alió; David P Piñero; Ana B Plaza-Puche; Francisco Amparo; Ramón Jiménez; Jose L Rodríguez-Prats; Jaime Javaloy Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Thomas Hofmann; Bruno Zuberbuhler; Alejandro Cervino; Robert Montés-Micó; Eduard Haefliger Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Mike P Holzer; Rudy M M A Nuijts; Soraya M R Jonker; Erik L J G Mertens; Asim Bozkurt Sener; Jorge A O Cazal; Antoni Salvador Playa; Ramon Ruiz Mesa; Bettina C Thomas Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2021-05-21