A prospective comparative study of the AMO ARRAY zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens

Comparison of visual performance between diffractive bifocal and diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses

To evaluate the visual performance of a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with + 4.0 D near addition (ZMB00) and a diffractive trifocal IOL with + 2.17 D and + 3.25 D near addition (AcrySof IQ PanOptix TFNT00), we investigated the 10-week postoperative parameters after cataract surgery in which ZMB00 or TFNT00 lenses were implanted bilaterally from 2011 to 2020 (with a 3-month interval between implantation of the right and left lenses). The study included 1448 eyes of 724 patients. The diffractive bifocal group comprised 1326 eyes of 663 patients (aged 67.0 ± 7.8 years; females/males, 518/145), and the diffractive trifocal group comprised 122 eyes of 61 patients (aged 66.6 ± 7.3 years; females/males, 35/26). A linear mixed-effects model using data for both eyes, with strict adjustments for sex, age, subjective refraction spherical equivalent, subjective refraction cylinder, corneal astigmatism, axial length, corneal higher-order aberrations, and pupil diameter, ensured statistical validity. Uncorrected near visual acuity and higher-order aberrations (ocular/internal, scaled to a pupil size of 4 mm) (Wavefront_4mm_postoperative_Ocular/Internal_Spherical) were significantly better in the bifocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (6.3/4.0/2.5/1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees), and contrast sensitivity with glare (4.0/1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees) were significantly better in the trifocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test).

The Most Cited Articles and Authors in Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the most highly cited articles and authors in refractive surgery.

METHODS

The Scopus database was searched for articles pertaining to refractive surgery using multiple search terms to identify the top 100 most cited articles in refractive surgery. A publicly available database of more than 100,000 scientists that provides standardized information on multiple variables resulting in a composite indicator (C score) was searched to identify refractive surgery authors. A refractive surgery-specific composite score was created using only the authors' publications that were directly related to refractive surgery.

RESULTS

The 100 most cited articles and 40 refractive surgery authors with the highest ranked C score were identified. The article with the most citations by Trokel et al has garnered nearly 800 citations to date. All articles included in the top 100 had 200 or more citations. The peak publication years were 1998 to 2001. Laser in situ keratomileusis (22), photorefractive keratectomy (18), and postoperative corneal ectasia and/or corneal biomechanics (16) were the most represented topics. Emory University generated the most articles (7) and the majority of publications (48%) originated in the United States. Steven E. Wilson, MD, had the highest refractive C score and Jorge L. Alió, MD, PhD, had the most refractive surgery articles and citations. Among all authors listed, the average number of refractive surgery publications was 97, with 35% of the group having more than 100 refractive surgery articles published. All authors on the list had more than 2,000 citations for their refractive surgery articles, whereas 38% had 4,000 or more citations.

CONCLUSIONS

This list provides a comprehensive assessment of the most cited articles and authors in refractive surgery and demonstrates key focuses and trends in the field over time. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(2):78-88.].

Comparative visual performance of diffractive bifocal and rotationally asymmetric refractive intraocular lenses

We compared the visual performance of a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with + 4.0 D near addition (ZMB00 [Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision]) and a rotationally asymmetric refractive IOL with + 1.5 D near addition (LS-313 MF15 [Teleon Surgical BV]) 10 weeks after cataract patients' last surgery for bilateral ZMB00 or LS-313 MF15 implantation between 2011 and 2020, with the lenses of each eye implanted within 3 months of each other. The ZMB00 and LS-313 MF15 groups comprised 1326 eyes of 663 patients (age: 67.0 ± 7.8 years; females/males, 518/145) and 448 eyes of 224 patients (73.6 ± 7.0 years; females/males, 125/99), respectively. A linear mixed-effects model using data for both eyes, with strict adjustments for sex, age, subjective refraction spherical equivalent, subjective refraction cylinder, corneal astigmatism, axial length, corneal higher-order aberrations, and pupil diameter, ensured statistical validity. Compared to LS-313 MF15, ZMB00 achieved significantly superior uncorrected near visual acuity, reduced higher-order aberrations (ocular/internal, scaled to a 4-mm pupil; Wavefront_4_post_Ocular_Total Higher-Order Aberration/Third/Fourth/Trefoil/Coma/Tetrafoil/Spherical, Wavefront_4_post_Internal_Astigmatism/Total Higher-Order Aberration/Third/Trefoil/Coma/Tetrafoil/Spherical), and superior distance and near spectacle independence (p < 0.00068, Wald test). Contrast sensitivity, measured without (visual angle of the test target: 6.3°/4.0°/2.5°/1.6°/1.0°/0.7°) or with glare (4.0°/2.5°/1.6°/1.0°/0.7°), was significantly better in the LS-313 MF15 than the ZMB00 group (p < 0.00068, Wald test).

Extent of multifocality with corneal manipulation in manual small incision cataract surgery with monofocal posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation

Purpose:

To compare the visual outcome in terms of multifocality in Manual Small Incision Cataract Surgery (MSICS) with and without intraoperative manipulation of corneal curvature.

Methods:

This was a prospective study on 80 subjects (80 eyes) who underwent MSICS with monofocal posterior chamber intraocular lens (PCIOL) implantation between January 2018 and October 2019. Intraoperative manipulation of corneal curvature using viscoelastics was performed during MSICS in 40 subjects (cases) while this intraoperative manipulation was not performed in the remaining 40 subjects (controls). Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were compared at day 1, 7, 30 and 180postoperatively.

Results:

At 1 month and 6 months of follow up, UDVA was comparable in the 2 groups. UNVA was better in cases than controls at 1 month and6 months (P < 0.001). At 6 months of follow up,76% of cases with UDVA of 6/9 or better had UNVA of N8 while only 15% of controls with UDVA of 6/9 or better had UNVA of N8 (P <0.001). Mean near add requirement to achieve a best corrected near vision (BCNV)of N6 at 6 months was significantly lesser (P =0.002) in cases (+2.05 D) compared to controls (+2.43D).

Conclusion:

MSICS with intra operative manipulation of corneal curvature resulted in better unaided near visual acuity compared to that without intra operative manipulation of corneal curvature, without compromising unaided distant visual acuity.

Extended depth-of-focus technology in intraocular lenses

The extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) is an emerging technology that is designed to improve range of vision, especially at intermediate distances. In this review, we describe the clinical performance of 4 emerging EDOF IOL technologies; that is, small aperture, bioanalogic, diffractive optics, and nondiffractive optical manipulations. The American Academy of Ophthalmology generated a consensus statement for EDOF IOLs that provided benchmarks and recommendations for classifying an implant as an EDOF IOL as well as standardized testing criteria for evaluating performance. Although many types of EDOF technologies are being developed, there are important differences in their performance that require further testing and evaluation.

Comparison of Post-Cataract Surgery Visual Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients Bilaterally Implanted with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Introduction

The present study compared visual outcomes in eyes with bilateral implantation of two multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs)—the Eyecryl™ ACTV diffractive multifocal IOL (group 1) and AcrySof^® IQ ReSTOR^® multifocal IOL (group 2).

Methods

This was a prospective, two-group observational longitudinal study of 118 eyes from 59 patients conducted at Laxmi Eye Institute, Panvel, India. We evaluated the patients at 1, 3, and 6 months. We assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations, reading speed, defocus curve, stereopsis, quality of life (QOL), and adverse events in these participants.

Results

The median (interquartile range) best-corrected distance visual acuity was 0.18 (0, 0.18) in group 1 and 0.18 (0, 0.18) in group 2 at 1, 3, and 6 months; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.48). The binocular defocus curve in both groups showed two peaks at 0.0 to −0.5 D and at −2.5 D. The mean (95% confidence interval) critical print size was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 at low illumination (0.918 [0.905, 0.931] vs 1.154 [1.128, 1.180]; p = 0.004). Contrast sensitivity was significantly better in group 1 under mesopic conditions but not under scotopic conditions. Though total QOL did not differ significantly between groups, the psychosocial quality of life was significantly better in group 1. About 23% of patients in group 2 reported unwanted images, compared with 0% in group 1 (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

We found that the Eyecryl and AcrySof groups were comparable for best-corrected visual acuity, photopic contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, reading parameters, stereopsis, and quality of vision. However, the Eyecryl group had better mesopic contrast and a lower proportion of unwanted images. Psychosocial quality of life was significantly better in the Eyecryl group; however, satisfaction was similar between groups. The cost of one of the lenses is less than the other. Thus, individuals with limited resources may opt for the Eyecryl™ ACTV, with similar visual outcomes.

Comparison of visual performance between monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses of the same material and basic design

To compare the visual performance of a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (ZCB00) and a multifocal IOL (ZMB00) of the same material and basic design, we evaluated postoperative parameters at 10 weeks after the last surgery in cataract patients who underwent bilateral ZCB00 or ZMB00 implantation from December 13, 2010, to July 29, 2019, with the right and left lenses implanted within 3 months of each other. The study enrolled 2,230 eyes of 1,115 patients. The monofocal group comprised 904 eyes of 452 patients (72.3 ± 6.8 years; females/males, 268/184), and the multifocal group comprised 1,326 eyes of 663 patients (67.0 ± 7.8 years; females/males, 518/145). Contrast sensitivity (4.0/2.5/1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees), contrast sensitivity with glare (1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees), and the VFQ-25 score for driving at night were significantly better in the monofocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). Uncorrected intermediate/near visual acuity and near spectacle independence were significantly better in the multifocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). The two IOL groups had different characteristics in terms of contrast sensitivity, night-time driving, uncorrected intermediate/near visual acuity and near spectacle independence.

Diffractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation in patients with monofocal intraocular lens in the contralateral eye

AIM

To evaluate clinical outcomes of unilateral implantation of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in patients with contralateral monofocal IOL.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients who already had implantation of a monofocal IOL in unilateral eye underwent implantation of a diffractive multifocal IOL in contralateral eye were enrolled. After 1, 6, and 12mo, uncorrected and distant corrected distant visual acuity (UCDVA and DCDVA), uncorrected and distant corrected intermediate-visual acuity (UCIVA and DCIVA), uncorrected and distant corrected near visual acuity (UCNVA and DCNVA), and contrast sensitivity were obtained. Halo/glare symptoms, spectacle dependence, and patient satisfaction were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age was 67.86±7.25y and the average interval between two IOL implantations was 645.82±878.44d. At 1mo, binocular UCDVA was lower than 0.20 logMAR in 76% of patients (mean 0.12±0.13 logMAR), which increased to 90% by 6 and 12mo. The binocular UCDVA was significantly better than the monocular results (P<0.05) at 1, 6, and 12mo. Additionally, UCNVA was lower than 0.40 logMAR in 82% of patients, increasing to 90% by 6 and 12mo. Mean UCNVA in the multifocal IOL implanted eye was statistically significantly better than that in the monofocal IOL implanted eye (P<0.05) at 1, 6, and 12mo. About 5% of patients at 1 and 6mo, reported "severe glare or halo". Patient satisfaction rates were 95% and 91% at 6 and 12mo, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral implantation of multifocal IOL in patients with a contralateral, monofocal IOL implantation results in high patient satisfaction rate, with low severe glare or halo rate during follow-up. It can represent a good option for patients who have previously had a monofocal IOL implantation regardless of two year interval duration between two IOL implantations.

Prospective multicenter trial of a small-aperture intraocular lens in cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical acceptability of monocular implantation of the small-aperture (IC-8) intraocular lens (IOL) in 1 eye and an aspheric monofocal IOL in the fellow eye of bilateral cataract patients over 6 months postoperatively.

SETTING

Twelve clinics in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Norway.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

The visual acuity, depth of focus, contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction, visual symptoms, and adverse events were assessed in patients who had bilateral cataract surgery followed by implantation of the small-aperture IOL in 1 eye and an aspheric monofocal IOL in the fellow eye. Uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were reported in Snellen notation.

RESULTS

The study comprised 105 patients. At 6 months, the UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA in eyes with the small-aperture IOL were 20/23, 20/24, and 20/30, respectively. Ninety-nine percent, 95%, and 79% of patients achieved 20/32 or better binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA, respectively. Ninety-three patients (95.9%) reported they would have the procedure again versus 4 patients (4.1%) who reported they would not have the procedure again. In eyes with the small-aperture IOL, the target-corrected defocus curve measured with 0.75 diopter (D) of myopia extended the range of functional near vision by an additional diopter without loss of distance vision compared with the distance-corrected defocus curves. The mean UIVA and UNVA remained at 20/25 and 20/32, respectively, for up to 1.5 D of residual astigmatism in eyes with the small-aperture IOL.

CONCLUSION

The small-aperture IOL showed excellent visual performance, safety, patient satisfaction, and tolerance to residual astigmatism 6 months after implantation.

Advances and challenges of intraocular lens design [Invited]

Phacoemulsification technique with intraocular lens implantation has been a common treatment for cataract patients. With rising demand among the public, new technologies for lens design have emerged to minimize intraocular aberrations, improving visual quality to the largest extent. This paper systematically reviews the development of materials applied in lens manufacturing, the different categories of intraocular lenses, and respective design principles. The advantages and potential drawbacks of intraocular lenses are illustrated in the paper, and prospective research to improve the design are presented in the end.

Continuous Transitional Focus (CTF): A New Concept in Ophthalmic Surgery

Presbyopia is a condition that affects many as the lens ages, and is a secondary effect of cataract surgery. Multifocal lenses for the treatment of presbyopia have been undergoing cycles of development and improvement over the past two decades. The latest advancements have yielded lenses with a continuous range of optical powers, otherwise known as continuous transitional focus (CTF) lenses. Modern CTF lenses provide a more natural experience for patients while minimizing unwanted optical side effects.

Multiplanar imaging properties of Theon sieves

Greek ladders with diffraction-limited array foci provide a probability to realize array imaging with equal intensity. Here, taking the ancient Theon sequence as an example, we design the optical structure and have measured the focusing properties by digital holography. Then, we verify the multiplanar imaging with different magnifications by experiment. The experimental results agree well with the theoretical analysis. In addition, bi-Fourier planes filtering technology is proposed to solve the problem of crosstalk between different imaging planes to further improve the imaging resolution. Therefore, we can freely design the focal length of the bifocal lens to achieve high-quality imaging at different resolutions. As a kind of amplitude-only diffractive lens, multifocal imaging provides a possibility of application in array biological imaging, ophthalmology, and an optical zoom system.

Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Function after Accommodative and Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Purpose

To evaluate visual acuities and contrast sensitivities (CS) after accommodative, refractive, and diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantations.

Methods

After cataract extractions, in 20 eyes accommodative IOL (group 1), in 30 eyes refractive IOL (group 2), and in 20 eyes diffractive multifocal IOL (group 3) implantations were performed. CS were measured with the stereo optical functional acuity contrast test. Uncorrected distance (UCDVA) and distance corrected near visual acuities (DCNVA) and refractive values were determined.

Results

The mean UCDVA (0.99±0.03) and DCNVA (0.98±0.04) of group 3 were significantly better than the other IOL groups. The mean DCNVA of group 2 (0.71±0.14) was significantly better than group 1 (0.5±0.08). One month after the operations CS, values of group 2 were significantly lower than the 2 other IOL groups. Photopic CS values of group 1 at 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were significantly higher than group 3. Three months after the operations, CS values of group 1 and 3 were significantly higher than that of group 2 at 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd and in all spatial frequencies respectively. There was no difference between groups 1 and 3 with respect to photopic CS values. Mesopic CS values of group 3 were significantly higher than that of group 1 at 1.5, 3, and 6 cpd. At the 6th and 12th month, CS values of group 3 were similar or better compared to the values of the 3rd month.

Conclusions

The diffractive multifocal IOL resulted in more favorable visual acuities and higher CS values than accommodative and refractive multifocal IOL.

Intermediate Visual Acuity without Spectacles following Bilateral ReSTOR® Implantation

Purpose

This survey determined uncorrected visual acuity (VA) at near, intermediate, and far distances in cataract patients implanted with ReSTOR®, and assessed patient satisfaction.

Methods

Consecutive cataract patients implanted bilaterally with ReSTOR® were followed up at least 4 months. The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale was used to measure VA for near (40 cm), intermediate (50, 60, and 70 cm), and distance vision, with VAs expressed in logMAR and adjusted for distance using Bennett's (1993) formula. Satisfaction was self-rated on a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 (poor) to 10 (high).

Results

Twenty-four consecutive patients (mean age 67.6 years) were operated upon by a single surgeon and followed up for a mean of 336.5 days after second eye surgery. Average postoperative VAs for uncorrected distance were 0.06 logMAR and intermediate VAs were 0.21 logMAR at both 50 cm and 60 cm and 0.22 logMAR at 70 cm. These levels of uncorrected intermediate VA would allow patients to read Word® computer text in Times New Roman font 8 zoomed to 100%, at 70 cm from the monitor screen. The authors found that 23/24 patients (96%) no longer wore spectacles. The remaining patient required correction for astigmatism as this refraction error is not yet correctable by ReSTOR®. Average self-rated satisfaction was 8.54.

Conclusions

In an everyday surgical practice, none of the studied bilateral ReSTOR® cataract patients without astigmatism required spectacles when followed up 6 months or later. Intermediate VA was compatible with reading and led to high patient satisfaction.

A Survey of Intraocular Lens Explantation: A Retrospective Analysis of 23 IOLs Explanted during 2005

Purpose

To evaluate the indications, lens styles, perioperative findings, and results of intraocular lens (IOL) explantation or exchange performed in the authors department in 2005.

Methods

The retrospective analysis comprised 22 patients (23 eyes). Twenty-one eyes had previous phacoemulsification and IOL implantation, one eye secondary aphakic IOL, and one eye phakic IOL implantation. The indications for IOL explantation/exchange and perioperative complications were evaluated. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before and after surgery was compared.

Results

Time from initial surgery to explantation/exchange varied from 1 to 121 months, median value was 46 months. The IOLs were explanted using local anesthesia and in 21 eyes replaced with new lens. Indications for IOL removal were opacification of the IOL in 12 eyes, malposition of the IOL in 5 eyes, postoperative refractive error in 2 eyes, recurrent toxic anterior segment syndrome in 1 eye, pseudophakic dysphotopsia in 1 eye, endothelial cell loss in phakic anterior chamber IOL in 1 eye, and visual discomfort with intraocular telescopic lens in 1 eye. The mean BCVA (decimal scale) before and after IOL explantation/exchange was 0.562±0.279 and 0.627±0.276, respectively. There was no significant difference in visual acuity before and after IOL exchange (Wilcoxon test).

Conclusions

The most frequent indications for IOL explantation/exchange were opacification of the IOL and IOL malposition. Surgeries were uneventful in most cases. Final visual results have been largely good. Long-term follow-up of patients with various types of IOLs should be maintained.

Accommodative Intraocular Lenses: Short-Term Visual Results of Two Different Lens Types

Purpose

To compare the ability of two types of accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) to provide uncorrected near and distance visual acuity (VA) after cataract surgery.

Methods

A total of 108 eyes of 75 patients underwent cataract surgery by phacoemulsification and IOL implantation either bilaterally or monocularly with one of two types of accommodative IOLs: the AT-45 lens (69 eyes) or the 1-CU lens (39 eyes). Patients were followed for up to 1 year after cataract surgery. Near VA was measured through the distance correction to obtain the true near vision effect of the accommodating IOL.

Results

Uncorrected distance VA of 20/30 or better was achieved by 84.6% of the bilaterally implanted 1-CU patients and 73.6% of the bilaterally implanted AT-45 IOL patients 1 year following surgery. Uncorrected near VA of J1 or better was achieved by 42% of the patients with the bilateral 1-CU implant and 36.8% of the patients with the bilateral AT-45 implant. For J3 or better near acuity, the values were 92.3% for the bilateral 1-CU patients and 84.2% for the bilateral AT-45 patients at 1 year. A total of 54% of the eyes with 1-CU implants underwent a mild myopic shift (<1.0 D), 21% had a mild hyperopic shift, and 45% of the eyes were emmetropic at 1 year.

Conclusions

Both accommodative IOLs provided good near and distance vision postoperatively. The 1-CU IOL appears clinically to provide slightly better uncorrected distance and distance-corrected near VA than the AT-45 lens.

Clinical outcomes of a new diffractive multifocal intraocular lens

AIM

To evaluate clinical outcomes after implantation of a new diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with +3.00 addition power.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, consecutive case series of cataract patients who underwent bilateral implantation of the Optiflex MO/HF D012 (Moss Vision Inc. Ltd, London, UK) multifocal IOL. Patients followed for 6mo were included in the study. Data on distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, refractive error [manifest spherical equivalent (MSE)], contrast sensitivity, adverse events, subjective symptoms, spectacle independence and patient satisfaction [visual function questionnaire (VFQ)-25 questionnaire] were retrieved from electronic medical records and analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty eyes of 20 patients with a mean age of 66.7±8.5y (range: 53-82) were included in the study. Mean uncorrected distance, near and intermediate visual acuity remained stable through postoperative visits and was 0.19±0.19 logMAR, Jaeger 4 and Jaeger 3 respectively at the 6mo visit. At the end of postoperative 6mo, MSE was -0.14±0.42 diopters (D) and 98% of the eyes were within 1.00 D of target refraction. Postoperative low contrast (10%) visual acuity remained stable (P=0.54) through follow up visits with a mean of 0.35±0.17 logMAR at the 6mo visit. There were no reported adverse events. None of the patients reported subjective symptoms of halo or glare. Spectacle independence rate was 90%. Mean VFQ-25 questionnaire score was 93.5±6.12.

CONCLUSION

The Optiflex MO/HF-DO12 IOL was safely implanted and successfully restored distance, intermediate and near visual acuity without impairing contrast sensitivity. High levels of spectacle independence were achieved at all distances including intermediate distance.

Patient-Centered and Visual Quality Outcomes of Premium Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review

Purpose

Over 8 million cataract surgeries are performed in the United States and the European Union annually, with many patients choosing to pay out of pocket for premium options including premium intraocular lens implants (IOLs) or laser-assisted cataract surgery (LACS). This report provides a systematic review evaluating patient-centered and visual quality outcomes comparing standard monofocal IOLs to premium cataract surgery options.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched for publications published between January 1, 1980, and September 18, 2016, on multifocal, accommodative, and toric IOLs, monovision, and LACS, which reported on 1) dysphotopsias, 2) contrast sensitivity, 3) spectacle independence, 4) vision-related quality of life or patient satisfaction, and 5) IOL exchange.

Results

Multifocal lenses achieved higher rates of spectacle independence compared to monofocal lenses but also had higher reported frequency of dysphotopsia and worse contrast sensitivity, especially with low light or glare. Accommodative lenses were not associated with reduced contrast sensitivity or more dysphotopsia but had only modest improvements in spectacle independence compared to monofocal lenses. Studies of monovision did not target a sufficiently myopic outcome in the near-vision eye to achieve the full potential for spectacle independence. Patients reported high levels of overall satisfaction regardless of implanted IOL. No studies correlated patient-reported outcomes with patient expectations.

Conclusions

Studies are needed to thoroughly compare patient-reported outcomes with concomitant patient expectations. In light of the substantial patient costs for premium options, patients and their surgeons will benefit from a better understanding of which surgical options best meet patients’ expectations and how those expectations can be impacted by premium versus monofocal—including monovision—options.

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

BACKGROUND

Good unaided distance visual acuity (VA) is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the visual effects of multifocal IOLs in comparison with the current standard treatment of monofocal lens implantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. We also considered trials comparing multifocal IOLs with "monovision" whereby one eye is corrected for distance vision and one eye corrected for near vision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 20 eligible trials that enrolled 2230 people with data available on 2061 people (3194 eyes). These trials were conducted in Europe (13), China (three), USA (one), Middle East (one), India (one) and one multicentre study in Europe and the USA. Most of these trials compared multifocal with monofocal lenses; two trials compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask participants and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias.There was moderate-certainty evidence that the distance acuity achieved with multifocal lenses was not different to that achieved with monofocal lenses (unaided VA worse than 6/6: pooled RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.03; eyes = 682; studies = 8). People receiving multifocal lenses may achieve better near vision (RR for unaided near VA worse than J3/J4 was 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.58; eyes = 782; studies = 8). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias in the included studies and high heterogeneity (I² = 93%) although all included studies favoured multifocal lenses with respect to this outcome.People receiving multifocal lenses may be less spectacle dependent (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; eyes = 1000; studies = 10). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias and evidence of publication bias (skewed funnel plot). There was also high heterogeneity (I² = 67%) but all studies favoured multifocal lenses. We did not additionally downgrade for this.Adverse subjective visual phenomena were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with a multifocal IOL compared with monofocals (RR for glare 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93; eyes = 544; studies = 7, low-certainty evidence and RR for haloes 3.58, 95% CI 1.99 to 6.46; eyes = 662; studies = 7; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was no evidence for any important differences in distance VA between the groups (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; eyes = 186; studies = 1), unaided intermediate VA (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; eyes = 181; studies = 1) and unaided near VA (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; eyes = 186; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. People receiving multifocal lenses were less likely to be spectacle dependent (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53; eyes = 262; studies = 2) but more likely to report problems with glare (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.73; eyes = 187; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. In one study, the investigators noted that more people in the multifocal group underwent IOL exchange in the first year after surgery (6 participants with multifocal vs 0 participants with monovision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs although there is uncertainty as to the size of the effect. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs, such as glare and haloes, will vary between people. Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor.

Comparison of a trifocal intraocular lens with a +3.0 D bifocal IOL: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To compare visual outcomes in patients with cataract surgery and bilateral implantation of a trifocal or bifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

SETTING

University Eye Clinic Maastricht, the Netherlands.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

Eyes with cataract and less than 1.0 diopter (D) of corneal astigmatism were randomized to receive bilateral implantation of Finevision Micro F trifocal IOLs or Acrysof IQ Restor +3.0 bifocal IOLs. Outcome measures were monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate (UIVA), and uncorrected near (UNVA) visual acuities; refractive outcomes; binocular defocus curve; contrast sensitivity; reading speed; patient satisfaction; and spectacle independence.

RESULTS

Six months postoperatively, the mean binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA in 56 eyes of 28 patients were 0.01 logMAR ± 0.11 (SD), 0.32 ± 0.15 logMAR, and 0.15 ± 0.13 logMAR in the trifocal group (n = 15) and 0.00 ± 0.09 logMAR, 0.28 ± 0.08 logMAR, and 0.12 ± 0.08 logMAR in the bifocal group (n = 13), respectively. The trifocal group showed a more continuous defocus curve and better results at -1.0 D of defocus (P < .01). The mean mesopic contrast sensitivity was higher in the bifocal group (P = .02). Complete spectacle independence was reported by 80% of trifocal patients and 50% of bifocal patients. There were no significant differences in refractive outcomes, reading speed, or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

This study showed noninferiority of visual outcomes with the trifocal IOL compared with the bifocal IOL, although the defocus curve was better at an intermediate distance with the trifocal IOL.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Dr. Bauer received study grants from Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, and Physiol S.A. and a lecture fee from Alcon Surgical, Inc. Dr. Nuijts is a consultant to Alcon Surgical, Inc., Théa Pharma GmbH, and ASICO LLC; he has received study grants from Acufocus, Inc., Alcon Surgical, Inc., Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Ophtec BV, and Physiol S.A. No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Visual Outcomes and Accommodative Response of the Lumina Accommodative Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To compare visual acuity, accommodation, and contrast sensitivity of the AkkoLens Lumina accommodative intraocular lens (AkkoLens Clinical b.v., Breda, The Netherlands) with a standard monofocal intraocular lens (IOL).

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

The study enrolled 86 eyes with cataract that all required cataract surgery and IOL implantation. The study group included 61 eyes that were implanted with the Lumina. The control group included 25 eyes that were implanted with an Acrysof SA60AT (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) monofocal IOL. The distance and near visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, and accommodation were measured over a 1-year follow-up period. Accommodation was measured subjectively, using defocus curves, and objectively, with an open-field autorefractor.

RESULTS

Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities did not differ significantly between the groups (P ≥ .21) over the 12 months. However, the uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was 0.07 ± 0.08 logRAD for the Lumina group and 0.37 ± 0.19 logRAD for the control group (P < .01) and the corrected distance near visual acuity (CDNVA) was 0.11 ± 0.12 LogRAD for the Lumina group and 0.41 ± 0.15 LogRAD for the control group (P < .01). Defocus curves showed a statistically significant difference between groups for defocus ranging from -4.50 to -0.50 diopters (D) (P < .01) with significantly higher visual acuities for the Lumina group. Subjective accommodation, as determined from defocus curves, was 3.05 ± 1.06, 3.87 ± 1.27, and 5.59 ± 1.02 D for the Lumina group and 1.46 ± 0.54, 2.00 ± 0.52, and 3.67 ± 0.75 D for the control group at visual acuities of 0.10, 0.20, and 0.4 logMAR for both groups, respectively. The objective accommodation, measured by an open-field autorefractor, was 0.63 ± 0.41, 0.69 ± 0.45, 0.91 ± 0.51, and 1.27 ± 0.76 D for the Lumina group and 0.10 ± 0.15, 0.12 ± 0.15, -0.06 ± 0.09 and 0.07 ± 0.10 D for the control group at accommodation stimuli of 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0 D, respectively. Contrast sensitivity was the same for both groups (P ≥ .26).

CONCLUSIONS

The Lumina accommodative IOL effectively restores the visual function, accommodation, and contrast sensitivity after cataract surgery with no influence on the postoperative contrast sensitivity.

Confocal laser method for quantitative evaluation of critical optical properties of toric intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To present a proof-of-concept study on the development and implementation of an innovative confocal laser method platform for precise quantitative evaluation of critical optical properties unique to toric intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Optical Therapeutics and Medical Nanophotonics Laboratory, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

DESIGN

Experimental study.

METHODS

The optical properties of hydrophobic toric IOLs were evaluated with a confocal laser method that was modified to isolate the 2 planes of focus that are observed with toric IOLs.

RESULTS

The results show the confocal laser method has the potential to measure the orthogonally separated optical powers and then calculate them to the commonly referenced spherical equivalent and cylinder powers of toric IOLs with high accuracy (≤1 μm of focal length measurement). Furthermore, the proposed confocal laser method design includes a new component for precise differentiation of the 2 focal planes and isolation of the 2 focal points, and thus for accurate measurement of the anterior cylinder axis of toric IOLs.

CONCLUSION

The modifications to the confocal laser method platform enabled the quantitative evaluation of optical properties attributed to toric IOLs.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

The Small-Aperture IC-8 Intraocular Lens: A New Concept for Added Depth of Focus in Cataract Patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual performance of subjects implanted monocularly with a small-aperture hydrophobic intraocular lens (IC-8 IOL).

DESIGN

A prospective, noncomparative, multicenter case series.

METHODS

A series of 12 patients, presenting for cataract surgery, were implanted monocularly with a single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular with a centrally located opaque annular mask measuring 3.23 mm in total diameter with a 1.36 mm central aperture. Uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA); depth of focus; and subjective symptoms were evaluated for 12 months after implantation. Mean ± standard deviation visual acuity is reported in logMAR.

RESULTS

The mean monocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA improved significantly from 0.42 ± 0.18, 0.52 ± 0.22 and 0.66 ± 0.23 preoperatively to 0.06 ± 0.08 (P < .0001), 0.07 ± 0.11 (P < .0001), and 0.11 ± 0.15 (P < .0001) at 1 month, respectively, and remained stable until 12 months. At 12 months, 100%, 100%, and 92% of patients achieved 20/32 or better binocularly for UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA, respectively. One hundred percent of eyes maintained 20/40 or better visual acuity over a range of +0.50 diopter to -1.50 diopters of defocus. Subjects implanted with the IC-8 IOL perceived a small magnitude of visual symptoms and rated their symptoms on the lower end of the severity scale.

CONCLUSION

Early results demonstrate that monocular IC-8 intraocular lens implantation provides a continuous, broad range of vision and excellent acuity across all focal distances.

A novel full-angle scanning light scattering profiler to quantitatively evaluate forward and backward light scattering from intraocular lenses

Glare, glistenings, optical defects, dysphotopsia, and poor image quality are a few of the known deficiencies of intraocular lenses (IOLs). All of these optical phenomena are related to light scatter. However, the specific direction that light scatters makes a critical difference between debilitating glare and a slightly noticeable decrease in image quality. Consequently, quantifying the magnitude and direction of scattered light is essential to appropriately evaluate the safety and efficacy of IOLs. In this study, we introduce a full-angle scanning light scattering profiler (SLSP) as a novel approach capable of quantitatively evaluating the light scattering from IOLs with a nearly 360° view. The SLSP method can simulate in situ conditions by controlling the parameters of the light source including angle of incidence. This testing strategy will provide a more effective nonclinical approach for the evaluation of IOL light scatter.

Evaluation of optical quality parameters and ocular aberrations in multifocal intraocular lens implanted eyes

PURPOSE

We investigated the correlations between optical quality parameters obtained from the double-pass system and ocular aberrations obtained from the ray-tracing aberrometer in multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implanted eyes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty eyes from 20 patients were enrolled in this study. Modulation transfer function cutoff frequency, The Strehl ratio, objective scatter index, and objective pseudo-accommodation obtained from the double-pass system were compared with root mean square (RMS) total aberration, RMS higher-order aberration, and spherical aberration obtained from the ray-tracing aberrometer. Additionally, parameters of the double-pass system and ray-tracing aberrometer were compared with manifested refraction values and subjective visual acuity, respectively.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant correlation between optical quality parameters obtained from the double-pass system and ocular aberrations, except between the Strehl ratio and RMS total aberration (r=-0.566, p=0.018). No significant correlations were found between the parameters of both devices, and manifested refraction values or subjective visual acuity.

CONCLUSION

Optical quality parameters, especially the Strehl ratio, in multifocal IOL implanted eyes were affected by RMS total aberration. Further studies based on accurate measurements of ocular aberrations and additional optical quality parameters are needed to delineate relationships between optical quality parameters and ocular aberrations in multifocal IOL implanted eyes.

Developments in the correction of presbyopia II: surgical approaches

PURPOSE

To discuss the various static and dynamic surgical approaches which attempt to give presbyopes good vision at far, intermediate and near viewing distances.

CONTENT

Static methods broadly adopt the same optical techniques as those used in presbyopic contact lens correction and aim to satisfy the needs of the presbyope by increasing binocular depth-of-focus, often using monovision as well as simultaneous-imagery. Dynamic methods generally attempt to make use of at least some of the still-active elements of the accommodation system. They include procedures which are supposed to modify the relative geometry of the ciliary muscle and lens, or which reduce the stiffness of the presbyopic lens either by replacing it with other natural or man-made material or by subjecting it to femtosecond laser treatment. Alternatively the natural lens may be replaced by some form of intraocular lens which changes power as a result of forces derived from the still-active ciliary muscle, zonule and capsule, or other sources.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, multifocal intraocular lenses appear to offer the most consistent and reliable surgical approach to surgical presbyopic correction. They have obvious advantages in convenience and stability over optically-similar, simultaneous-image presbyopic contact lenses but this must be balanced against their relative inflexibility in cases of patient dissatisfaction. Dynamic methods remain largely experimental. Although some approaches show promise, as yet no method has demonstrated a reliable, long-term ability to correct distance refractive error and to appropriately change ocular power in response to changes in viewing distance over the normal range of interest.

Bilateral mix-and-match versus unilateral multifocal intraocular lens implantation: long-term comparison

PURPOSE

To compare the visual outcomes and subjective satisfaction levels of patients who had bilateral mix-and-match implantation or monocular implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative case series.

METHODS

Patients had implantation of a diffractive multifocal IOL (Tecnis ZM900) in 1 eye and a refractive multifocal IOL (Rezoom NXG1) in the other eye via the mix-and-match approach or of a Tecnis ZM900 IOL in 1 eye only. After 1 year, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and contrast sensitivity were evaluated. Patient satisfaction, spectacle dependence, and halo and glare symptoms were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were evaluated. One year postoperatively, the mean values in the bilateral group and unilateral group were, respectively, binocular UDVA, 0.10 logMAR ± 0.18 (SD) and 0.10 ± 0.13 logMAR (P=.574); UIVA, 0.23 ± 0.12 logMAR and 0.29 ± 0.14 logMAR (P=.127); UNVA, 0.25 ± 0.18 logMAR and 0.27 ± 0.25 logMAR (P=.926). Subjective patient satisfaction was slightly higher in the bilateral implantation group (P=.083). There were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity, spectacle dependency, halos, or glare.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in postoperative visual acuity, subjective patient satisfaction, spectacle independence, or other visual symptoms between patients who had bilateral or unilateral implantation of multifocal IOLs. Unilateral implantation of a multifocal IOL is an option to lower spectacle dependency and increase patient satisfaction.

New-generation multifocal intraocular lens for pediatric cataract

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To evaluate multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) implantation in children.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study evaluating refractive, visual and safety results of MIOL in pediatric cataract surgery. Average follow-up was 25.73 ± 10.5 months. Surgery included 12 o'clock clear corneal incision, anterior capsulorhexis, lens material aspiration and MIOL implantation (SN6AD3; Alcon).

RESULTS

We included 34 cataract eyes of 26 pediatric patients aged 2-15 years, of which 14 (54%) were unilateral. Best near visual acuity (BNVA) and best distance visual acuity (BDVA) improved significantly in 100% of eyes (p = 0.0001). BDVA was above 0.8 in 31.25% (5/16) of bilateral cases. Significant stereopsis improvement was observed postoperatively in bilateral cases only (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

MIOL implantation is a safe alternative to monofocal pseudophakia for pediatric cataract with a very low complication rate. Significant BNVA, BDVA and stereopsis improvement can be achieved, particularly in bilateral cases.

MESSAGE

This study shows significant BDVA, BNVA and stereopsis improvement, especially in bilateral cases, after MIOL implantation for pediatric cataracts.

Comparison of visual performance of multifocal intraocular lenses with same material monofocal intraocular lenses

Purpose

To compare the visual performance of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and monofocal IOLs made of the same material.

Methods

The subjects included patients implanted with either Tecnis® monofocal IOLs (ZA9003 or ZCB00) or Tecnis® multifocal IOLs (ZMA00 or ZMB00) bilaterally. We conducted a retrospective study comparing the two types of IOLs. The multifocal group included 46 patients who were implanted with Tecnis® multifocal IOLs bilaterally. The monofocal group was an age- and sex-matched control group, and included 85 patients who were implanted with Tecnis® monofocal IOLs bilaterally. Lens opacity grading, the radius of corneal curvature, corneal astigmatism, axial length and the refractive status were measured preoperatively. Pupil size, ocular aberrometry, distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity with and without glare and the responses to a quality-of-vision questionnaire were evaluated pre- and postoperatively.

Results

The uncorrected near visual acuity was significantly better in the multifocal group, whereas both the corrected intermediate and near visual acuity were better in the monofocal group. Contrast sensitivity (with and without glare) was significantly better in the monofocal group. The rate of spectacle dependency was significantly lower in the multifocal group. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding most items of the postoperative quality-of-vision questionnaire (VFQ-25), with the exception that the patients in the monofocal group reported fewer problems with nighttime driving.

Conclusions

The multifocal IOLs used in this study reduced spectacle dependency more so than monofocal IOLs and did not compromise the subjective visual function, with the exception of nighttime driving.

Visual performance after bilateral implantation of a new diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lens with a 3.5 D addition

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual performance after implantation of a new diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) with a +3.50 D addition power.

METHODS

A total of 24 cataract patients were bilaterally implanted with the Diffractiva-aA MIOL in 2 ophthalmologic centers and followed for 6 months. Postoperative evaluations included visual acuities (VA) at various distances, defocus testing, contrast sensitivity (CS) measurements, and patient satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

Six months postoperatively, binocular uncorrected VA (mean ± SD; logMAR) was 0.00 ± 0.05 (≈ 20/20) for distance, 0.06 ± 0.13 (≈ 20/23) for intermediate (1 m), and 0.00 ± 0.05 (≈ 20/20) for near (40 cm). All patients achieved uncorrected VA of 20/25 or better for distance and near, and 20/40 or better at 1 m. Monocular and binocular defocus curves showed 2 peaks of maximum VA at the distance focus (0.0 D) and the near focus (-2.5 D) and a good range of intermediate vision with the lowest mean acuity being at -1.5 D defocus. Photopic and mesopic CS were within the standard normal range. The majority of patients (n = 22; 91.7%) were spectacle independent; 8.3% (n = 2) reported wearing glasses occasionally for very small print (1 patient) or for watching television (1 patient). Overall, all patients were "very satisfied" (n = 22; 91.7%) or "satisfied" (n = 2; 8.3%) with the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The new Diffractiva-aA MIOL provided a full range of vision from near to far generating highly satisfied, spectacle independent patients with only minimal visual disturbances at night.

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

BACKGROUND

Good unaided distance visual acuity is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of multifocal IOLs, including effects on visual acuity, subjective visual satisfaction, spectacle dependence, glare and contrast sensitivity, compared to standard monofocal lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 6 March 2012. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted investigators of included studies and manufacturers of multifocal IOLs for information about additional published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected data and assessed trial quality. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a random-effects model, otherwise we tabulated data.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen completed trials (1608 participants) and two ongoing trials were identified. All included trials compared multifocal and monofocal lenses but there was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask patients and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias. There was moderate quality evidence that similar distance acuity is achieved with both types of lenses (pooled risk ratio (RR) for unaided visual acuity worse than 6/6: 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.05). There was also evidence that people with multifocal lenses had better near vision but methodological and statistical heterogeneity meant that we did not calculate a pooled estimate for effect on near vision. Total freedom from use of glasses was achieved more frequently with multifocal than monofocal IOLs. Adverse subjective visual phenomena, particularly haloes, or rings around lights, were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with the multifocal IOL and there was evidence of reduced contrast sensitivity with the multifocal lenses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs will vary between patients. Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor.

Visual and optical performance with the ReZoom multifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

This study evaluated visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and wavefront aberrations after refractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

METHODS

A prospective study comprising 174 eyes of 87 patients who had bilateral implantation of a multifocal IOL was carried out. A control group of 100 eyes of 50 age-matched patients with a monofocal IOL was used for comparison. Uncorrected and corrected distance and near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), and wavefront analysis (Hartmann-Shack) was performed 6 months after surgery. Contrast sensitivity was tested for distance and near under mesopic (2 cd/m2) and photopic conditions (90 cd/m2).

RESULTS

Distance photopic CS was not significantly different from the monofocal group, while distant mesopic CS and near photopic and mesopic CS were significantly lower. Mean aberration root mean square (RMS) values for the multifocal IOL group were 0.229 ± 0.103 µm for coma, 0.137 ± 0.067 µm for spherical aberration (SA), and 0.301 ± 0.133 µm for higher order aberrations (HOAs). Strehl ratio averaged 0.096 ± 0.045.

CONCLUSIONS

Distant visual performance with the multifocal IOL was excellent under photopic conditions, but was reduced under mesopic levels. Near vision showed suboptimal results in both photopic and mesopic conditions. Coma, SA, and HOAs with the multifocal IOL were higher than those reported previously, with a lower Strehl ratio.

Clinical evaluation of the OptiVis™ multifocal intraocular lens

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the OptiVis™ Multifocal Intraocular Lens (IOL) in patients undergoing bilateral crystalline lens replacement following extracapsular extraction by phacoemulsification.

METHODS

This was a prospective 6-month, open-label, nonrandomized clinical trial of subjects undergoing bilateral implantation with the OptiVis Multifocal IOL. Of the 121 eyes enrolled, 88 eyes of 44 subjects completed the entire 6-month trial.

RESULTS

After 6 months, the majority of eyes had a distance best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better, with 89.8% achieving that outcome, and 100% with 20/32 or better. At an intermediate distance, most eyes (90.9%) had a distance corrected intermediate visual acuity of 20/40 or better, and 53.4% had an acuity of 20/32 or better. At a near distance, most eyes (95.5%) had a distance corrected near visual acuity of 20/40 or better by month 6. The most commonly reported adverse event was mild-to-moderate halos (n = 30, 36%) and mild-to-moderate glare (n = 15, 18%). In addition, there was one case of cystoid macular edema, one posterior capsular opacification, and one case of severe corneal edema. Postoperative contrast sensitivity was comparable with normal phakic subjects ≥ 60 years of age.

CONCLUSION

The OptiVis Multifocal IOL provided satisfactory visual acuity at distance, near, and intermediate with no apparent reduction in contrast sensitivity. Additional, longer-term follow-up studies are planned.

Quality of life evaluation after implantation of 2 multifocal intraocular lens models and a monofocal model

PURPOSE

To compare vision-related quality of life using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) in patients with 1 of 3 types of intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to correlate it with postoperative visual outcomes.

SETTING

Vissum Corporation-Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante, Alicante, Spain.

DESIGN

Comparative case series.

METHODS

This study comprised eyes having cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of a monofocal IOL (Group A), apodized multifocal IOL (Group B), or full diffractive multifocal IOL (Group C). Distance and near visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, and quality of life were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 106 eyes (53 patients; age range 49 to 80 years). All groups had significant improvement in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuities postoperatively (P ≤.05). Near vision outcomes were significantly better in Groups B and C (P ≤.01). Groups B and C had significantly less difficulty in some near tasks, such as reading the newspaper (A-B, P=.02; A-C, P=.02) or reading bills (A-B, P=.04; A-C, P=.004). Group C also had significantly less difficulty driving at night than Group B (P<.01). Near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were significantly correlated with difficulty in near visual tasks in Groups B and C. Night-driving difficulty correlated significantly with contrast sensitivity in Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with multifocal IOLs could perform several daily tasks at near and intermediate distances, with less night-driving limitation with the full diffractive IOL than with apodized multifocal and monofocal IOLs.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Visual outcomes and optical performance of a monofocal intraocular lens and a new-generation multifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To compare visual acuity outcomes and ocular and intraocular optical quality in patients with a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) or a multifocal IOL with rotational asymmetry.

SETTING

Vissum Corporation, Alicante, Spain.

DESIGN

Comparative case series.

METHODS

Consecutive eyes of cataract patients were divided into 2 groups. One group received a Lentis Mplus LS-312 multifocal IOL and the other, an Acri.Smart 48S monofocal IOL. Distance and near visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, intraocular aberrations (global minus corneal aberrations), and defocus curves were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively during a 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The study evaluated 52 eyes of 29 patients (age range 36 to 87 years); 24 eyes were in multifocal IOL group and 28 eyes, in the monofocal IOL group. Both groups had a significant improvement in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuities and in distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) postoperatively (P ≤ .04). The multifocal IOL group had significantly better uncorrected near acuity and DCNVA (Jaeger [J] 5 versus J2) (both P < .01). The defocus curves showed significantly better visual acuities in the multifocal group at several levels of defocus. The multifocal group had significantly higher amounts of postoperative intraocular primary coma (P<.01), especially in eyes with significant IOL tilt, although there were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity between the 2 IOL groups (P ≥ .25).

CONCLUSIONS

The new-generation multifocal IOL restored distance, intermediate, and near visual function after cataract surgery. The optical quality with this type of IOL was particularly affected by IOL tilt and decentration.