Publication: Comparison between clinical results of two diffractive multifocal lenses with the same platform but different additions
Loading...
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2015-04
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Sociedad Española de Cirugía Ocular Implanto-Refractiva (SECOIR)
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate visual results with two multifocal diffractive lenses designed with the same platform but with different additions.
SETTING: Grupo Innova Ocular clinics.
METHODS: A total of 50 eyes from 50 patients were included. Group 1 (n = 25) was implanted with the TECNIS® 1 ZLB +3.25 and group 2 (n = 25) with the TECNIS® 1 ZKB +2.75. Patients were assessed at 24 hours, 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. At surgical discharge, corrected (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), near visual acuity (VA) at 25, 40 and 80 cm, visual quality and the defocus curve were measured.
RESULTS: Changes in sphere and spherical equivalent were statistically significant (p<0.01) in both groups at 1 week and 1 month compared to preoperative values. In group 1, UCDVA logMAR at 1 month was 0.06 ± 0.02. In group 2, UCDVA at 1 month was 0.03 ± 0.03. In near vision, the TECNIS® 1 ZLB group obtained a VA logMAR of 0.35 ± 0.02 at 25 cm, 0.13 ± 0.02 at 40 cm and 0.27 ± 0.02 at 80 cm, while in the TECNIS® 1 ZKB group, the values were 0.38 ± 0.03, 0.14 ± 0.03 and 0.23 ± 0.06, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found either when results for
visual quality were compared.
CONCLUSION: Both the TECNIS® 1 ZLB and TECNIS® 1 ZKB are excellent options for obtaining good distance and near vision, in addition to providing good intermediate vision, especially at distances such as those required for working with computers.
Description
En abierto en la web del editor.
Submitted 3/3/2015 ; Revised 6/2/2015 ; Accepted 6/9/2015.
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
1. Agresta B, Knorz MC, Kohnen T, Donatti C, Jackson D. Distance and near visual acuity improvement after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with presbyopia: a systematic review. J Refract Surg. 2012; 28:426-35.
2. Holladay JT, Van Dijk H, Lang A, et al. Optical performance of multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990; 16:413-22.
3. Auffarth GU, Rabsilber TM, Kohnen T, Holzer MP. [Design and optical principles of multifocal lenses]. Ophthalmologe. 2008; 105:522-6.
4. Lichtinger A, Rootman DS. Intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction: past, present, and future. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012; 23:40-6.
5. de Vries NE, Webers CA, Montes-Mico R, Ferrer-Blasco T, Nuijts RM. Visual outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of a +3.00 D or +4.00 D aspheric diffractive multifocal intraocular lens: Comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:1316-22.
6. Santhiago MR, Netto MV, Espindola RF, et al. Comparison of reading performance after bilateral implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses with +3.00 or +4.00 diopter addition. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:1874-9.
7. Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Netto MV, et al. Visual performance of an apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with +3.00-d addition: 1-year follow-up. J Refract Surg. 2011; 27:899-906.
8. Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Netto MV, et al. Modulation transfer function and optical quality after bilateral implantation of a +3.00 D versus a +4.00 D multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012; 38:215-20.
9. Sun Y, Zheng D, Song T, Liu Y. Visual function after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive multifocal IOL with a +3.0 or +4.0 D addition. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging.
2011; 42:302-7.
10. Alfonso JF, Fernandez-Vega L, Puchades C, Montes-Mico R. Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:733-9.
11. Mester U, Junker B, Kaymak H. [Functional results with two multifocal intraocular lenses with different near addition]. Ophthalmologe. 2011; 108:137-42.
12. Petermeier K, Messias A, Gekeler F, Szurman P. Effect of +3.00 diopter and +4.00 diopter additions in multifocal intraocular lenses on defocus profiles, patient satisfaction, and contrast sensitivity. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:720-6.
13. Chang DF. Prospective functional and clinical comparison of bilateral ReZoom and ReSTOR intraocular lenses in patients 70 years or younger. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:934-41.
14. Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Aggarwal RK, Kasaby S. ReSTOR intraocular lens implantation in cataract surgery: quality of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1459-63.
15. Fernandez-Vega L, Alfonso JF, Rodriguez PP, Montes-Mico R. Clear lens extraction with multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114:1491-8.
16. Goes FJ. Refractive lens exchange with the diffractive multifocal TECNIS® 1ZM900 intraocular lens. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24:243-50.
17. Martinez Palmer A, Gomez Faina P, Espana Albelda A, et al. Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24:257-64.
18. Vingolo EM, Grenga P, Iacobelli L, Grenga R. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity: AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive versus AcrySof SA60AT monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1244-7.
19. Zeng M, Liu Y, Liu X, et al. Aberration and contrast sensitivity comparison of aspherical and monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens eyes. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007; 35:355-60.
20. Packer M, Chu YR, Waltz KL, et al. Evaluation of the aspheric tecnis multifocal intraocular lens: one-year results from the first cohort of the food and drug administration clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010; 149:577-84 e1.
21. Cillino S, Casuccio A, Di Pace F, et al. One-year outcomes with new-generation multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:1508-16.
22. Bautista CP, Gonzalez DC, Gomez AC. Evolution of visual performance in 70 eyes implanted with the Tecnis((R)) ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012; 6:403-7.
23. Wolffsohn JS, Jinabhai AN, Kingsnorth A, et al. Exploring the optimum step size for defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39:873-80.
24. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Javaloy J, et al. Comparison of a new refractive multifocal intraocular lens with an inferior segmental near add and a diffractive multifocal intraocular
lens. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119:555-63.
25. Castillo-Gomez A, Carmona-Gonzalez D, Martinez-de-laCasa JM, Palomino-Bautista C, Garcia-Feijoo J. Evaluation of image quality after implantation of 2 diffractive multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:1244-50.