Irene Altemir-Gomez1,2,3, Maria S Millan4, Fidel Vega4, Francisco Bartol-Puyal1, Galadriel Gimenez-Calvo2,3,5, Jose M Larrosa1,2,3, Vicente Polo1,2,3, Luis E Pablo1,2,3, Elena Garcia-Martin1,2,3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain. 2. Aragon Health Sciences Institute (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain. 3. University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. 4. Applied Optics and Image Processing Group (GOAPI), Faculty of Optics and Optometry of Terrassa, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, BarcelonaTech, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Provincial de Nuestra Señora de Gracia, Zaragoza, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare visual quality in patients implanted with Tecnis® monofocal (ZCB00) and multifocal (ZMB00) intraocular lenses taking into account their optical quality measured in vitro with an eye model. METHODS: In total, 122 patients participated in this study: 44 implanted with monofocal and 78 with multifocal intraocular lenses. Measurements of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were performed. The optical quality of the intraocular lenses was evaluated in three image planes (distance, intermediate and near) using an eye model on a test bench. The metric considered was the area under the curve of the modulation transfer function. RESULTS: Optical quality at the far focus of the monofocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 66.97) was considerably better than that with the multifocal lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 32.54). However, no significant differences were observed between groups at the distance-corrected visual acuity. Distance-corrected near vision was better in the multifocal (0.15 ± 0.20 logMAR) than that in the monofocal group (0.43 ± 0.21 logMAR, p < 0.001), which correlated with the better optical quality at near reached by the multifocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 29.11) in comparison with the monofocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 5.0). In intermediate vision, visual acuity was 0.28 ± 0.16 logMAR (multifocal) and 0.36 ± 0.14 logMAR (monofocal) with p = 0.014, also in good agreement with the values measured in the optical quality (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 10.69 (multifocal) and 8.86 (monofocal)). The contrast sensitivity was similar in almost all frequencies. Pelli-Robson was slightly better in the monofocal (1.73) than in the multifocal group (1.64; p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Patients implanted with multifocal ZMB00 achieved a distance visual acuity similar to those implanted with monofocal ZCB00, but showed significantly better intermediate and near visual acuity. A correlation was found between intraocular lenses' optical quality and patients' visual acuity. Contrast sensitivity was very similar between the multifocal and monofocal groups.
OBJECTIVE: To compare visual quality in patients implanted with Tecnis® monofocal (ZCB00) and multifocal (ZMB00) intraocular lenses taking into account their optical quality measured in vitro with an eye model. METHODS: In total, 122 patients participated in this study: 44 implanted with monofocal and 78 with multifocal intraocular lenses. Measurements of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were performed. The optical quality of the intraocular lenses was evaluated in three image planes (distance, intermediate and near) using an eye model on a test bench. The metric considered was the area under the curve of the modulation transfer function. RESULTS: Optical quality at the far focus of the monofocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 66.97) was considerably better than that with the multifocal lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 32.54). However, no significant differences were observed between groups at the distance-corrected visual acuity. Distance-corrected near vision was better in the multifocal (0.15 ± 0.20 logMAR) than that in the monofocal group (0.43 ± 0.21 logMAR, p < 0.001), which correlated with the better optical quality at near reached by the multifocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 29.11) in comparison with the monofocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 5.0). In intermediate vision, visual acuity was 0.28 ± 0.16 logMAR (multifocal) and 0.36 ± 0.14 logMAR (monofocal) with p = 0.014, also in good agreement with the values measured in the optical quality (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 10.69 (multifocal) and 8.86 (monofocal)). The contrast sensitivity was similar in almost all frequencies. Pelli-Robson was slightly better in the monofocal (1.73) than in the multifocal group (1.64; p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Patients implanted with multifocal ZMB00 achieved a distance visual acuity similar to those implanted with monofocal ZCB00, but showed significantly better intermediate and near visual acuity. A correlation was found between intraocular lenses' optical quality and patients' visual acuity. Contrast sensitivity was very similar between the multifocal and monofocal groups.