Literature DB >> 36125586

Comparisons of visual outcomes between bilateral implantation and mix-and-match implantation of three types intraocular lenses.

Shurui Ke1,2,3, Wenjuan Wan1,2,3, Can Li4,5,6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare binocular static visual acuity (SVA), stereopsis, contrast sensitivity (CS) and dynamic visual acuity (DVA) of 5 combinations of bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), trifocal IOLs and extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in age-related cataract patients.
METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-two eyes of 146 patients who underwent cataract surgery in the ophthalmology department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were involved. Subgroups included group MM (33patients, bilaterally bifocal IOL, ZMB00), group TT (31patients, bilaterally trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP), group XX (34patients, bilaterally EDOF IOL, ZXR00), group MX (25patients, bifocal IOL, ZMB00 + EDOF IOL, ZXR00) and group TX (23patients, trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP + EDOF IOL, ZXR00). The uncorrected SVAs (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA), uncorrected DVAs (UDDVA, UIDVA and UNDVA), near and distance stereopsis, and CS were assessed 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Subgroups of TT, XX, MX and TX showed better UIVA than MM (bP = 0.039, 0.021, 0.035 and 0.037, respectively). MX showed better UNVA than MM and TX (bP = 0.031 and 0.013, respectively). MX group had the optimal outcomes of both near and distance stereopsis. In the UDDVA, XX group and MX group showed better outcomes than TX group at 24 fps (frames per second) (bP = 0.019 and 0.023, respectively). XX group and MX group showed optimal outcomes at all speeds of UIDVA (P = 0.001, 0.005, 0.003 and 0.005, respectively). As the speed increased, the XX group and the MX group showed better UNDVA than the MM group and the TT group (P = 0.019, 0.002 and 0.003, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Mix-and-match implantation of bifocal IOLs and EDOF IOLs provides excellent and stable binocular visual outcomes including SVA, stereopsis and DVA in distant and near distances.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contrast sensitivity; Dynamic visual acuity; Extended depth of focus intraocular lens; Mix-and-match implantation; Multifocal intraocular lens; Stereopsis

Year:  2022        PMID: 36125586     DOI: 10.1007/s10792-022-02513-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0165-5701            Impact factor:   2.029


  19 in total

1.  A Comparative Evaluation of a New Generation of Diffractive Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses.

Authors:  Beatrice Cochener; Guillaume Boutillier; Mathieu Lamard; Claire Auberger-Zagnoli
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting IOL designs: Diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive, and extended-depth-of-focus.

Authors:  Myriam Böhm; Kerstin Petermann; Eva Hemkeppler; Thomas Kohnen
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  In vitro optical quality differences between multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Robert Montés-Micó; David Madrid-Costa; Javier Ruiz-Alcocer; Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Alvaro M Pons
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.351

4.  Comparative analysis of the visual performance after cataract surgery with implantation of a bifocal or trifocal diffractive IOL.

Authors:  Peter Mojzis; Lucia Kukuckova; Katarina Majerova; Katerina Liehneova; David P Piñero
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Comparison of Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction After Bilateral Implantation of an EDOF IOL and a Mix-and-Match Approach.

Authors:  Imane Tarib; Insa Kasier; Claudia Herbers; Philip Hagen; Detlev Breyer; Hakan Kaymak; Karsten Klabe; Rafaela Lucchesi; Swetlana Teisch; Vasilios F Diakonis; Ursula Hahn; Höhn Fabian; Florian T A Kretz
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Rubén Sánchez-Jean; David Carmona-González; David P Piñero; Ainhoa Molina-Martín
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 2.031

7.  Visual performance and patient satisfaction after implantation of extended range-of-vision IOLs: bilateral implantation vs 2 different mix-and-match approaches.

Authors:  Oh-Sub Koo; Jun-Won Kang; Jin-Koo Park; Kuk-Hyoe Kim
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 3.351

8.  Clinical outcome comparison: bilateral trifocal vs. mix-match extended depth of focus and trifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Banu Acar; Burcu Nurozler Tabakci
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-06-27       Impact factor: 2.031

9.  Comparison Between Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal IOL and Mix-and-Match Implantation of a Bifocal IOL and an Extended Depth of Focus IOL.

Authors:  Ji Eun Song; Ramin Khoramnia; Hyeck-Soo Son; Michael C Knorz; Chul Young Choi
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 3.573

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.