This prospective, randomized, double-masked, clinical trial was designed to evaluate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, subjective quality of vision, and quality of life in 47 patients symmetrically, and randomly, implanted with 4 different IOL designs (SN6AD1, SN60D3, ReZoom NXG1, and Tecnis ZMA00), 3 months after cataract intervention.
Methods
Binocular corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity, binocular distance corrected (BCNVA) and uncorrected (UCNVA) near visual acuity, binocular distance corrected (BCIVA) and uncorrected (UCIVA) intermediate visual acuity, photopic, mesopic, and mesopic with glare contrast sensitivity, quality of vision, and quality of life were evaluated.
Results
Statistically and clinically significant differences were found in BCNVA and UCNVA at 33 cm between high and low add power IOLs, while diffractive SN6AD1 lenses achieved better UCNVA at 40 cm than refractive ReZoom IOLs. Asphericity and low add power were found to improve BCIVA. Contrast sensitivity was similarly compromised in all IOL models, although diffractive optics and aspheric profiles performed better in mesopic conditions. All IOL types received similar overall satisfaction and quality of life scores. Whereas ReZoom patients depended on their spectacles for near tasks, intermediate vision was spectacle independent. Photic phenomena were present in all IOLs, albeit more frequent in ReZoom IOLs.
Conclusions
The present results, which reflect IOL characteristics in optics, profile, and add power, may contribute to help surgeons decide on the type of IOL most suitable for each patient, especially those with high visual demands at near and intermediate distances.
Statistical Office of European Communities.Long Term Indications: Population and Social Conditions.Brussels: European Commission; 2009.
2.
WangB., CiuffredaK.J.Depth-of-focus of the human eye: theory and clinical implications.Surv Ophthalmol2006; 51: 75–85.
3.
PlakitsiA., CharmanW.N.Comparison of the depths of focus with the naked eye and with three types of presbyopic contact lens correction.J Br Contact Lens Assoc1995; 18: 119–25.
4.
PackerM., FineI.H., HoffmanR.S.Refractive lens exchange with the array multifocal intraocular lens.J Cataract Refract Surg2002; 28: 421–4.
5.
SenH.N., SarikkolaA.U., UusitaloR.J., LaatikainenL.Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation.J Cataract Refract Surg2004; 30: 2483–93.
6.
CillinoS., CasuccioA., Di PaceF.One-year outcomes with new-generation multifocal intraocular lenses.Ophthalmology2008; 115: 1508–16.
7.
AlfonsoJ.F., Fernández-VegaL., SeñarisA., Montés-MicóR.Quality of vision with the Acri: twin asymmetric diffractive bifocal intraocular lens system.J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 197–202.
8.
Fernández-VegaL., AlfonsoJ.F., BaamondeM.B., Montés-MicóR.Symmetric bilateral implantation of a distance-dominant diffractive bifocal intraocular lens.J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 1913–7.
9.
MesterU., HunoldW., WesendahlT., KaymakH.Functional outcomes after implantation of Tecnis ZM900 and Array SA40 multifocal intraocular lenses.J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 1033–40.
10.
BellucciR., ScialdoneA., BurattoL.Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity comparison between Tecnis and AcrySof SA60AT intraocular lenses: a multicenter randomized study.J Cataract Refract Surg2005; 31: 712–7.
11.
DenoyerA., Le LezM.L., MajzoubS., PisellaP.J.Quality of vision after cataract surgery after Tecnis Z9000 intraocular lens implantation: effect of contrast sensitivity and wavefront aberration improvements on the quality of daily vision.J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 210–6.
12.
KohnenT., AllenD., BoureauC.European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens.Ophthalmology2006; 113: 578–84.
13.
DavisonJ.A., SimpsonM.J.History and development of the apodized diffractive intraocular lens.J Cataract Refract Surg2006; 32: 849–58.
14.
ArtigasJ.M., MenezoJ.L., PerisC., FelipeA., Díaz-LlopisM.Image quality with multifocal intraocular lenses and the effect of pupil size: comparison of refractive and hybrid refractive-diffractive designs.J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 2111–7.
HayashiK., ManabeS., HayashiH.Visual acuity from far to near and contrast sensitivity in eyes with a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with a low addition power.J Cataract Refract Surg2009; 35: 2070–6.
17.
RochaK.M., SorianoE.S., ChalitaM.R.Wavefront analysis and contrast sensitivity of aspheric and spherical intraocular lenses: a randomized prospective study.Am J Ophthalmol2006; 142: 750–6.
18.
Montés-MicóR., Ferrer-BlascoT., CerviñoA.Analysis of the possible benefits of aspheric intraocular lenses: review of the literature.J Cataract Refract Surg2009; 35: 172–81.
19.
TzelikisP.F., AkaishiL., TrindadeF.C., BoteonJ.E.Spherical aberration and contrast sensitivity in eyes implanted with aspheric and spherical intraocular lenses: a comparative study.Am J Ophthalmol2008; 145: 827–33.
20.
AlfonsoJ.F., Fernández-VegaL., PuchadesC., Montés-MicóR.Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models.J Cataract Refract Surg2010; 36: 733–9.
21.
AlfonsoJ.F., Fernández-VegaL., BaamondeM.B., Montés-MicóR.Correlation of pupil size with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity after implantation of an apodized diffractive intraocular lens.J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 430–8.
SteinbergE.P., TielschJ.M., ScheinO.D.The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract.Arch Ophthalmol1994; 112: 630–8.
26.
BaileyI.L., BullimoreM.A., RaaschT.W., TaylorH.R.Clinical grading and the effects of scaling.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1991; 32: 422–32.
27.
PomeranceG.N., EvansD.W.Test-retest reliability of the CSV-1000 contrast test and its relationship to glaucoma therapy.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1994; 35: 3357–61.
28.
NgoC., SinghM., SngC., LoonS.C., ChanY.H., TheanL.Visual acuity outcomes with SA60D3, SN60D3, and ZM900 multifocal IOL implantation after phacoemulsification.J Refract Surg2010; 26: 177–82.
29.
MesterU., DillingerP., AnteristN.Impact of a modified optic design on visual function: clinical comparative study.J Cataract Refract Surg2003; 29: 652–60.
30.
SouzaC.E., MuccioliC., SorianoE.S.Visual performance of AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL: a prospective comparative trial.Am J Ophthalmol2006; 141: 827–32.
31.
ChiamP.J.T., ChanJ.H., HaiderS.I., KariaN., KasabyH., AggarwalR.K.Functional vision with bilateral ReZoom and ReSTOR intraocular lenses 6 months after cataract surgery.J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 2057–61.
32.
MarcosS., BarberoS., Jiménez-AlfaroI.Optical quality and depth-of-field of eyes implanted with spherical and aspheric intraocular lenses.J Refract Surg2005; 21: 223–35.
PeposeJ.S., QaziM.A., DaviesJ.Visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens implants.Am J Ophthalmol2007; 144: 347–57.
35.
Martínez PalmerA., Gómez FaiñaP., España AlbeldaA., Comas SerranoM., Nahra SaadD., Castilla CéspedesM.Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.J Refract Surg2008; 24: 257–64.
36.
KamleshD.S., DadeyaS., KaushikS.Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens.Can J Ophthalmol2001; 36: 197–201.
37.
Montés-MicóR., EspañaE., BuenoI., CharmanW.N., MenezoJ.L.Visual performance with multifocal intraocular lenses: mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance and near conditions.Ophthalmology2004; 111: 85–96.
38.
SenH.N., SarikkolaA-U, UusitaloR.J., LaatikainenL.Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation.J Cataract Refract Surg2004; 30: 2483–93.
39.
RenieriG., KurzS., SchneiderA., EisenmannD.ReSTOR diffractive versus Array 2 zonal-progressive multifocal intraocular lens: a contralateral comparison.Eur J Ophthalmol2007; 17: 720–8.
