Top

International Ophthalmology

Published in:

01-02-2020 | Cataract | Original Paper

Visual acuity and defocus curves with six multifocal intraocular lenses

Authors: Miguel A. Gil, Consuelo Varón, Genis Cardona, José A. Buil

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 2/2020

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-masked, study was to compare the visual performance of patients after bilateral implantation of six different IOLs.

Methods

The following IOLs were used in the study: SV25T0 (n = 19), ATLISA 809M (n = 18), ATLISA Tri 839MP (n = 19), ZKB00 (n = 20), ZLB00 (n = 20) and Symfony ZXR00 (n = 20). Visual performance was assessed by the monocular distance-corrected visual acuity at 4 m (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 60 cm and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm. Binocular defocus curves were obtained for a range of defocus from + 1.50 D to − 4.50 D, in 0.50 D steps. Quality of life was assessed with the VF-14 questionnaire.

Results

CDVA was better with the Symfony ZXR00 than with the SV25T0 (p = 0.032), ATLISA Tri 839MP (p = 0.032) and ATLISA 809M (p = 0.018). The Symfony ZXR00 offered the best DCIVA, followed by the ZKB00. The best and worst DCNVA results corresponded to the ZLB00, and the SV25T0 and Symfony ZXR00, respectively. Defocus curves at distance were good in all groups, although the Symfony had a wider range of clear vision (− 1.50 D to + 0.50 D), with no decay. For intermediate vision, only the Symfony obtained sharp visual acuity. The ATLISA 809M, ATLISA Tri 839MP and ZLB00 were superior at near distance.

Conclusions

The extended depth of focus of the Symfony ZXR00 offers a superior range of clear vision at far and intermediate distances than other multifocal designs, with worse results at near distance. Visual outcomes reflect the particular optical, geometrical and power distribution characteristics of each IOL.

Alfonso JF, Fernandez-Vega L, Puchades C, Montés-Micó R (2010) Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:733–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.11.018 CrossRefPubMed

MacRae S, Holladay JT, Glasser A, Calogero D, Hilmantel G, Masket S et al (2017) Special report: American academy of ophthalmology task force consensus statement for extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 124:139–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.039 CrossRefPubMed

Pieh S, Kellner C, Hanselmayer G, Lackner B, Schmidinger G, Walkow T et al (2002) Comparison of visual acuities at different distances and defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:1964–1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01317-2 CrossRefPubMed

Akella SS, Juthani VV (2018) Extended depth of focus intraocular lenses for presbyopia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 29:318–322. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000490 CrossRefPubMed

Gupta N, Wolffsohn JSW, Naroo S (2008) Optimizing measurement of subjective amplitude of accommodation with defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1329–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.04.031 CrossRefPubMed

Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, VF-14 (1994) An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 112:630–638. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1994.01090170074026 CrossRefPubMed

Vilar C, Hida WT, de Medeiros AL, Magalhaes KRP, de Moraes Tzelikis PF, Chaves MAPD et al (2017) Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of two bifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 11:1393–1397. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S139909 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pedrotti E, Carones F, Aiello F, Mastropasqua R, Bruni E, Bonacci E et al (2018) Comparative analysis of visual outcomes with 4 intraocular lenses: monofocal, multifocal, and extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 44(2):156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.11.011 CrossRefPubMed

Savini G, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Balducci N, Barboni P (2018) Visual performance of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens compared to a distance-dominant diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 34(4):228–235. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20180125-01 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hogarty DT, Russell DJ, Ward BM, Dewhurst N, Burt P (2018) Comparing visual acuity, range of vision and spectacle independence in the extended range of vision and monofocal intraocular lens. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 46:854–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13310 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Yoo YS, Whang WJ, Byun YS, Piao JJ, Kim DY, Joo CK et al (2018) Through-focus optical bench performance of extended depth-of-focus and bifocal intraocular lenses compared to a monofocal lens. J Refract Surg 34(4):236–243. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20180206-04 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kretz FT, Koss MJ, Auffarth GU, ZLB00 Study Group (2015) Intermediate and near visual acuity of an aspheric, bifocal, diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with +3.25 D near addition. J Refract Surg 31(5):295–299. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20150423-02 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Escandón-García S, Ribeiro FJ, McAlinden C, Queirós A, González-Méijome JM (2018) Through-focus vision performance and light disturbances of 3 new intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction. J Ophthalmol 2018:6165493. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6165493 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Ferreira-Ríos I, Zuñiga-Posselt K, Serna-Ojeda JC, Chávez-Mondragón E (2018) Objective and subjective results following implantation of the FineVision trifocal intraocular lens in Mexican patients. Int Ophthalmol 38:2617–2622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0725-x CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mojzis P, Kukuckova L, Majerova K, Ziak P, Piñero P (2017) Postoperative visual performance with a bifocal and trifocal diffractive intraocular lens during a 1-year follow-up. Int J Ophthalmol 10(10):1528–1533. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2017.10.08 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

García-Bella J, Ventura-Abreu N, Morales-Fernández L, Talavero-González P, Carball-Álvarez J, Sanz-Fernández JC et al (2018) Visual outcomes after progressive apodized diffractive intraocular lens implantation. Eur J Ophthalmol 28(3):282–286. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5001030 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Monaco G, Gari M, Di Censo F, Poscia A, Ruggi G, Scialdone A (2017) Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: trifocal versus extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 43(6):737–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.03.037 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Breyer DRH, Kaymak H, Ax T, Kretz FTA, Auffarth GU, Hagen PR (2017) Multifocal intraocular lenses and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol 6(4):339–349. https://doi.org/10.22608/APO.2017186 CrossRef

19.

Charman WN, Whitefoot H (1977) Pupil diameter and the depth-of-field of the human eye as measured by laser speckle. Opt Acta 24:1211–1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/713819479 CrossRef

20.

Wolffsohn JS, Jinabhai AN, Kingsnorth A, Sheppard AL, Naroo SA, Shah S et al (2013) Exploring the optimum step size for defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg 39(6):873–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.031 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Visual acuity and defocus curves with six multifocal intraocular lenses
Authors: Miguel A. Gil
Consuelo Varón
Genis Cardona
José A. Buil
Publication date: 01-02-2020
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Keyword: Cataract
Published in: International Ophthalmology / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01196-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Visual acuity and defocus curves with six multifocal intraocular lenses

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Factors affecting pain in patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery

Vision-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic macular hole

Angiogenic and inflammatory biomarker levels in aqueous humor and vitreous of neovascular glaucoma and proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Ocular biometric parameters are associated with non-contact tonometry measured intraocular pressure in non-pathologic myopic patients

Intravitreal bevacizumab injection in aggressive posterior retinopathy of prematurity compared with type I retinopathy of prematurity

Error in measurement of intraocular pressure with the Icare and IcarePRO