OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively a diffractive (811E, Pharmacia; power add +4.0 D) versus a refractive (PA154N, Allergan; power add +3.5 D) designed multifocal lens. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty patients planned for cataract surgery without additional ocular pathologies were randomized into the diffractive or refractive group, respectively. INTERVENTION: A standardized no-stitch phacoemulsification with implantation of one of the two multifocal lenses was performed in each patient. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distance and near-visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, low contrast visual acuity, glare visual acuity, and depth of focus were measured after surgery. RESULTS: All treated patients had best-corrected visual acuities of 20/30 or better. Near-uncorrected vision was significantly better (P < 0.0001) with the diffractive lens (mean, J1) than with the refractive lens (mean, J4). Low contrast visual acuity (61 +/- 12% versus 59 +/- 9%), glare visual acuity (39 +/- 19% versus 38 +/- 14%), and contrast sensitivity (1.48 +/- 0.08 versus 1.50 +/- 0.12) were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both lens designs showed satisfactory functional results with advantages for the diffractive lens design.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively a diffractive (811E, Pharmacia; power add +4.0 D) versus a refractive (PA154N, Allergan; power add +3.5 D) designed multifocal lens. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty patients planned for cataract surgery without additional ocular pathologies were randomized into the diffractive or refractive group, respectively. INTERVENTION: A standardized no-stitch phacoemulsification with implantation of one of the two multifocal lenses was performed in each patient. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distance and near-visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, low contrast visual acuity, glare visual acuity, and depth of focus were measured after surgery. RESULTS: All treated patients had best-corrected visual acuities of 20/30 or better. Near-uncorrected vision was significantly better (P < 0.0001) with the diffractive lens (mean, J1) than with the refractive lens (mean, J4). Low contrast visual acuity (61 +/- 12% versus 59 +/- 9%), glare visual acuity (39 +/- 19% versus 38 +/- 14%), and contrast sensitivity (1.48 +/- 0.08 versus 1.50 +/- 0.12) were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both lens designs showed satisfactory functional results with advantages for the diffractive lens design.
Authors: S Pieh; G Hanselmayer; B Lackner; P Marvan; A Grechenig; H Weghaupt; C Vass; C Skorpik Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.638
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