Literature DB >> 28718041

Quality of vision, patient satisfaction and long-term visual function after bilateral implantation of a low addition multifocal intraocular lens.

Emilio Pedrotti1, Rodolfo Mastropasqua1,2, Jacopo Bonetto3, Christian Demasi1, Francesco Aiello4, Carlo Nucci4, Cesare Mariotti2, Giorgio Marchini1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the current study was to compare the quality of vision, contrast sensitivity and patient satisfaction with a biaspheric, segmented, rotationally asymmetric IOL (Lentis Comfort LS-313 MF 15-Oculentis GmbH, Berlin, Germany) as opposed to those of a monofocal IOL.
METHODS: This prospective single-blind comparative study included two groups of patients affected by bilateral senile cataract who underwent lens extraction and IOL implantation. The first group received a bilateral implantation of a monofocal IOL, and the second group received a bilateral implantation of the Comfort IOL. Twelve months after surgery uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at different distances (30, 50, 70 cm and 4 m), defocus curve and contrast sensitivity were assessed. Patient's satisfaction and spectacle independence were evaluated by mean of the NEI RQL-42 questionnaire.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of near vision. The group of patients implanted with a Comfort IOL obtained the best results at intermediate distances (50 and 70 cm P < .001). Both groups showed an excellent uncorrected distance visual acuity (4 m). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of corrected near, intermediate and distance visual acuity. Concerning contrast sensitivity, no statistically significant differences between the groups were observed at any cycles per degree. The NEI RQL-42 questionnaire showed statistically significant differences between the group for "near vision" (P = .015), "dependence on correction" (P = .048) and "suboptimal correction" (P < .001) subscales.
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that the Comfort IOL +1.5 D provides a good intermediate spectacle independence together with a high quality of vision, with a low amount of subjective symptoms and a contrast sensitivity similar to those obtained with a monofocal IOL.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comfort IOL; Defocus curve; Multifocal; Pseudophakic presbyopia; Visual quality

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28718041     DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0652-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0165-5701            Impact factor:   2.031


  23 in total

1.  Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models.

Authors:  José F Alfonso; Luis Fernández-Vega; Cristina Puchades; Robert Montés-Micó
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Impact of cataract surgery on self-reported visual difficulties: comparison with a no-surgery reference group.

Authors:  Gerald McGwin; Kay Scilley; Jay Brown; Cynthia Owsley
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  Comparison of the visual and intraocular optical performance of a refractive multifocal IOL with rotational asymmetry and an apodized diffractive multifocal IOL.

Authors:  Jorge L Alió; Ana B Plaza-Puche; Jaime Javaloy; María José Ayala
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Visual outcomes with a single-optic accommodating intraocular lens and a low-addition-power rotational asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Jorge L Alió; Ana B Plaza-Puche; Raúl Montalban; Jaime Javaloy
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.351

5.  Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity: AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive versus AcrySof SA60AT monofocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Enzo Maria Vingolo; PierLuigi Grenga; Luca Iacobelli; Roberto Grenga
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.351

6.  Visual performance of AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL: a prospective comparative trial.

Authors:  Carlos E Souza; Cristina Muccioli; Eduardo S Soriano; Maria Regina Chalita; Filipi Oliveira; Lincoln L Freitas; Luci P Meire; Celina Tamaki; Rubens Belfort
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-03-20       Impact factor: 5.258

7.  Visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens implants.

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

8.  Visual outcomes and optical performance of a monofocal intraocular lens and a new-generation multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Jorge L Alió; David P Piñero; Ana B Plaza-Puche; Maria Joanna Rodriguez Chan
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.351

9.  Comparative study of Acrysof ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lenses +4.00 D and +3.00 D: visual performance and wavefront error.

Authors:  Lisa Toto; Paolo Carpineto; Gennaro Falconio; Luca Agnifili; Marta Di Nicola; Alessandra Mastropasqua; Leonardo Mastropasqua
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 2.742

10.  Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of extended range of vision and trifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Ramón Ruiz-Mesa; Antonio Abengózar-Vela; Ana Aramburu; María Ruiz-Santos
Journal:  Eur J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-01-28       Impact factor: 2.597

View more
  9 in total

1.  Temporary changes of visual outcomes and anterior chamber parameters after phacoemulsification and low-add-power segmented intraocular lens implantation for primary angle closure disease.

Authors:  Yohei Chikaraishi; Yoshikuni Arakaki; Hideki Koizumi
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Comparative analysis of visual quality between unilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Na Hui; Mei-Fang Chu; Yan Li; Cong-Yi Wang; Lei Yu; Bo Ma
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-09-18       Impact factor: 1.645

3.  Comparative analysis of objective and subjective outcomes of two different intraocular lenses: trifocal and extended range of vision.

Authors:  Emilio Pedrotti; Francesco Carones; Pietro Talli; Erika Bonacci; Federico Selvi; Alice Galzignato; Andrea Besutti; Alessandra De Gregorio; Giorgio Marchini
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-10-14

4.  The repeatability and agreement of biometric measurements by dual Scheimpflug device with integrated optical biometer.

Authors:  Hassan Hashemi; Sara Sardari; Abbasali Yekta; Mehdi Khabazkhoob
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  One-year clinical evaluation of rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens with +1.5 diopters near addition.

Authors:  Tetsuro Oshika; Hiroyuki Arai; Yoshifumi Fujita; Mikio Inamura; Yasushi Inoue; Toru Noda; Kazunori Miyata
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Characterization of optical performance with defocusing curve: Analysis of two refractive intraocular lens models with high and medium addition.

Authors:  Jorge A Calvo-Sanz; Miguel A Sánchez-Tena
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2018-11-01

7.  Prospective assessment of plate-haptic rotationally asymmetric multifocal toric intraocular lens with near addition of + 1.5 diopters.

Authors:  Tetsuro Oshika; Kazuno Negishi; Toru Noda; Hiroyuki Arai; Mikio Inamura; Yasushi Inoue; Teruyuki Miyoshi; Yoshifumi Fujita; Kazunori Miyata; Yumi Hasegawa
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 2.209

Review 8.  Multifocal intraocular lenses and retinal diseases.

Authors:  Andrzej Grzybowski; Piotr Kanclerz; Raimo Tuuminen
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-01-18       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Polychromatic Assessment of a Refractive Segmented EDOF Intraocular Lens.

Authors:  Scott García; Luís Salvá; Salvador García-Delpech; Anabel Martínez-Espert; Vicente Ferrando; Diego Montagud-Martínez
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 4.241

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.