Literature DB >> 8733848

Comparison of a diffractive bifocal and a monofocal intraocular lens.

E D Allen1, R L Burton, S K Webber, E Haaskjold, K Sandvig, H Jyrkkiö, E Leite, A Nyström, J Wollensak.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare a Pharmacia diffractive bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with a monofocal lens of the same design without the diffractive grating.
SETTING: Multicenter study.
METHODS: This randomized, prospective study comprised 70 patients with a monofocal IOL and 79 with a diffractive bifocal IOL. Follow-up was 5 to 6 months. Near and distance visual acuities, contract sensitivity, patient satisfaction, and spectacle use were evaluated.
RESULTS: All patients achieved a best corrected visual acuity of 0.5 or better; 80% in the monofocal and 71% in the bifocal group had a best corrected visual acuity of 1.0 or better. Without correction, 93% of the bifocal and 9% of the monofocal group could read J3 or better. With distance correction, 99% and 4%, respectively, could read J3 or better. Contrast sensitivity was slightly lower in the bifocal group at distance and near for all spatial frequencies. In the bifocal group, 46% never used spectacles for near tasks. Overall satisfaction was rated good by 86% of the monofocal and 85% of the bifocal group.
CONCLUSIONS: The diffractive bifocal IOL performed well at distance and near. Patients who no longer require spectacles will benefit significantly from a bifocal IOL, but many with a bifocal IOL in one eye will require spectacles for the fellow eye.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8733848     DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(96)80040-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg        ISSN: 0886-3350            Impact factor:   3.351


  9 in total

1.  [Accommodation ability under the aspect of refractive, demographic, and biometric parameters].

Authors:  K Klatt; A Langenbucher; B Seitz; N X Nguyen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Effectiveness of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery and lens replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sumitra S Khandelwal; Jason J Jun; Selene Mak; Marika Suttorp Booth; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Changes of the accommodative amplitude and the anterior chamber depth after implantation of an accommodative intraocular lens.

Authors:  Hanka Schneider; Oliver Stachs; Katja Göbel; Rudolf Guthoff
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Contrast sensitivity after extracapsular and intracapsular cataract extraction.

Authors:  E K Mela; J X Koliopoulos; N M Pharmakakis; S P Gartaganis
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 5.  Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.

Authors:  Samantha R de Silva; Jennifer R Evans; Varo Kirthi; Mohammed Ziaei; Martin Leyland
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-12-12

6.  Visual Performance of Tecnis ZM900 Diffractive Multifocal IOL after 2500 Implants: A 3-Year Followup.

Authors:  Leonardo Akaishi; Rodrigo Vaz; Graziela Vilella; Rodrigo C Garcez; Patrick F Tzelikis
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 1.909

7.  Clinical evaluation of accommodative intraocular lens implantation in high myopic eyes.

Authors:  Jae Hui Kim; Chun Sung Park; Tae Young Chung; Eui Sang Chung
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-06

8.  Evaluation of Different Power of Near Addition in Two Different Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.

Authors:  Ugur Unsal; Gonen Baser
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 1.909

Review 9.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.