Miguel A Gil1, Consuelo Varón2, Genis Cardona3, José A Buil1. 1. Ophthalmology Department, Santa Creu and Sant Pau Hospital, carrer de Sant Quintí, 89, 08041, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Department of Optics and Optometry, Terrassa School of Optics and Optometry, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, carrer Violinista Vellsolà, 37, 08222, Terrassa, Catalonia, Spain. 3. Department of Optics and Optometry, Terrassa School of Optics and Optometry, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, carrer Violinista Vellsolà, 37, 08222, Terrassa, Catalonia, Spain. genis.cardona@upc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-masked, study was to compare the visual performance of patients after bilateral implantation of six different IOLs. METHODS: The following IOLs were used in the study: SV25T0 (n = 19), ATLISA 809M (n = 18), ATLISA Tri 839MP (n = 19), ZKB00 (n = 20), ZLB00 (n = 20) and Symfony ZXR00 (n = 20). Visual performance was assessed by the monocular distance-corrected visual acuity at 4 m (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 60 cm and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm. Binocular defocus curves were obtained for a range of defocus from + 1.50 D to - 4.50 D, in 0.50 D steps. Quality of life was assessed with the VF-14 questionnaire. RESULTS:CDVA was better with the Symfony ZXR00 than with the SV25T0 (p = 0.032), ATLISA Tri 839MP (p = 0.032) and ATLISA 809M (p = 0.018). The Symfony ZXR00 offered the best DCIVA, followed by the ZKB00. The best and worst DCNVA results corresponded to the ZLB00, and the SV25T0 and Symfony ZXR00, respectively. Defocus curves at distance were good in all groups, although the Symfony had a wider range of clear vision (- 1.50 D to + 0.50 D), with no decay. For intermediate vision, only the Symfony obtained sharp visual acuity. The ATLISA 809M, ATLISA Tri 839MP and ZLB00 were superior at near distance. CONCLUSIONS: The extended depth of focus of the Symfony ZXR00 offers a superior range of clear vision at far and intermediate distances than other multifocal designs, with worse results at near distance. Visual outcomes reflect the particular optical, geometrical and power distribution characteristics of each IOL.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-masked, study was to compare the visual performance of patients after bilateral implantation of six different IOLs. METHODS: The following IOLs were used in the study: SV25T0 (n = 19), ATLISA 809M (n = 18), ATLISA Tri 839MP (n = 19), ZKB00 (n = 20), ZLB00 (n = 20) and Symfony ZXR00 (n = 20). Visual performance was assessed by the monocular distance-corrected visual acuity at 4 m (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 60 cm and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm. Binocular defocus curves were obtained for a range of defocus from + 1.50 D to - 4.50 D, in 0.50 D steps. Quality of life was assessed with the VF-14 questionnaire. RESULTS: CDVA was better with the Symfony ZXR00 than with the SV25T0 (p = 0.032), ATLISA Tri 839MP (p = 0.032) and ATLISA 809M (p = 0.018). The Symfony ZXR00 offered the best DCIVA, followed by the ZKB00. The best and worst DCNVA results corresponded to the ZLB00, and the SV25T0 and Symfony ZXR00, respectively. Defocus curves at distance were good in all groups, although the Symfony had a wider range of clear vision (- 1.50 D to + 0.50 D), with no decay. For intermediate vision, only the Symfony obtained sharp visual acuity. The ATLISA 809M, ATLISA Tri 839MP and ZLB00 were superior at near distance. CONCLUSIONS: The extended depth of focus of the Symfony ZXR00 offers a superior range of clear vision at far and intermediate distances than other multifocal designs, with worse results at near distance. Visual outcomes reflect the particular optical, geometrical and power distribution characteristics of each IOL.
Authors: Scott MacRae; Jack T Holladay; Adrian Glasser; Don Calogero; Gene Hilmantel; Samuel Masket; Walter Stark; Michelle E Tarver; Tieuvi Nguyen; Malvina Eydelman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Daniel T Hogarty; Deborah J Russell; Bernadette M Ward; Nicholas Dewhurst; Peter Burt Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: E P Steinberg; J M Tielsch; O D Schein; J C Javitt; P Sharkey; S D Cassard; M W Legro; M Diener-West; E B Bass; A M Damiano Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 1994-05
Authors: Javier García-Bella; Néstor Ventura-Abreu; Laura Morales-Fernández; Paula Talavero-González; Jesús Carballo-Álvarez; Juan Carlos Sanz-Fernández; José M Vázquez-Moliní; José M Martínez-de-la-Casa Journal: Eur J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 2.597
Authors: Ivo Ferreira-Ríos; Karla Zuñiga-Posselt; Juan Carlos Serna-Ojeda; Eduardo Chávez-Mondragón Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: César Vilar; Wilson Takashi Hida; André Lins de Medeiros; Klayny Rafaella Pereira Magalhães; Patrick Frensel de Moraes Tzelikis; Mario Augusto Pereira Dias Chaves; Antônio Francisco Pimenta Motta; Pedro Carlos Carricondo; Milton Ruiz Alves; Walton Nosé Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2017-08-01