BACKGROUND: Common refractive bifocal IOLs feature 2 or 3 spherical zones with different refraction; the design of the Array multifocal IOL consists of 5 concentric zones, each of them providing a progressive near addition with multiple foci by means of an aspherical surface. METHODS: As a part of a prospective study, distance and near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, glare and depth of field were examined in 15 patients with the Array lens and a monofocal control group 12 months after implantation. Subjective assessment of the optical quality was performed by detailed asking for optical symptoms. Results were retrospectively compared with the one year follow-up of 15 patients with diffractive bifocal IOLs. RESULTS: No difference was found for best corrected far and near visual acuity and sensitivity for high contrasts. Glare and sensitivity for low contrasts of the monofocal IOL was significantly superior to both multifocal models. Array IOL and diffractive IOL achieved a near acuity of Nieden 2-1 with only distance correction; defocus curves revealed an increase in the depth of field, but with a superiority of the Array lens in intermediate imaging. Optical symptoms as halos were much more frequent in patients with the diffractive IOL than in the Array group. CONCLUSIONS: Functional results of the Array multifocal IOL seem to be comparable to those of the diffractive bifocal IOL, but with the advantage of an improved intermediate imaging and a reduction of optical side effects.
BACKGROUND: Common refractive bifocal IOLs feature 2 or 3 spherical zones with different refraction; the design of the Array multifocal IOL consists of 5 concentric zones, each of them providing a progressive near addition with multiple foci by means of an aspherical surface. METHODS: As a part of a prospective study, distance and near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, glare and depth of field were examined in 15 patients with the Array lens and a monofocal control group 12 months after implantation. Subjective assessment of the optical quality was performed by detailed asking for optical symptoms. Results were retrospectively compared with the one year follow-up of 15 patients with diffractive bifocal IOLs. RESULTS: No difference was found for best corrected far and near visual acuity and sensitivity for high contrasts. Glare and sensitivity for low contrasts of the monofocal IOL was significantly superior to both multifocal models. Array IOL and diffractive IOL achieved a near acuity of Nieden 2-1 with only distance correction; defocus curves revealed an increase in the depth of field, but with a superiority of the Array lens in intermediate imaging. Optical symptoms as halos were much more frequent in patients with the diffractive IOL than in the Array group. CONCLUSIONS: Functional results of the Array multifocal IOL seem to be comparable to those of the diffractive bifocal IOL, but with the advantage of an improved intermediate imaging and a reduction of optical side effects.
Authors: S Pieh; B Lackner; G Hanselmayer; R Zöhrer; M Sticker; H Weghaupt; A Fercher; C Skorpik Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.638