Posterior capsular opacification evaluation through contrast sensitivity defocus curves with two multifocal intraocular lenses of similar material

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joaquín Fernández ◽  
Javier García-Montesinos ◽  
Javier Martínez ◽  
David P. Piñero ◽  
Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Posterior Capsular Opacification ◽  
Similar Material ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

scholarly journals Comparison of Higher-Order Aberration and Contrast Sensitivity in Monofocal and Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

2007 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Yeom Kim ◽  
So-Hyang Chung ◽  
Tae-im Kim ◽  
Young Jae Cho ◽  
Geunyoung Yoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Higher Order Aberration

scholarly journals Visual performance in a flight simulator: multifocal intraocular lenses in pilots

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000139
Author(s):  
Lee Lenton
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Luminance Contrast ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Visual Performance ◽  
Flight Simulator ◽  
Night Time ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Low Luminance ◽  
Visual Tasks

ObjectiveTo compare the performance of adults with multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in a realistic flight simulator with age-matched adults with monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).Methods and AnalysisTwenty-five adults ≥60 years with either bilateral MIOL or bilateral IOL implantation were enrolled. Visual function tests included visual acuity and contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, defocus curves and low luminance contrast sensitivity tests in the presence and absence of glare (Mesotest II), as well as halo size measurement using an app-based halometer (Aston halometer). Flight simulator performance was assessed in a fixed-based flight simulator (PS4.5). Subjects completed three simulated landing runs in both daytime and night-time conditions in a randomised order, including a series of visual tasks critical for safety.ResultsOf the 25 age-matched enrolled subjects, 13 had bilateral MIOLs and 12 had bilateral IOLs. Photopic and mesopic visual acuity or contrast sensitivity were not significantly different between the groups. Larger halo areas were seen in the MIOL group and Mesotest values were significantly worse in the MIOL group, both with and without glare. The defocus curves showed better uncorrected visual acuity at intermediate and near distances for the MIOL group. There were no significant differences regarding performance of the vision-related flight simulator tasks between both groups.ConclusionsThe performance of visually related flight simulator tasks was not significantly impaired in older adults with MIOLs compared with age-matched adults with monofocal IOLs. These findings suggest that MIOLs do not impair visual performance in a flight simulator.

scholarly journals Multifocal intraocular lenses and retinal diseases

2020 ◽  
Vol 258 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Grzybowski ◽  
Piotr Kanclerz ◽  
Raimo Tuuminen
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Macular Degeneration ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽  
Visual Field Defects ◽  
Retinal Diseases ◽  
Epiretinal Membranes ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Age Related

Abstract Purpose Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) are often discouraged in patients with or at risk of retinal disorders (including diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, and epiretinal membranes), as MIOLs are believed to reduce contrast sensitivity (CS). Concerns with MIOLs have also been raised in individuals with visual field defects, fixation instability or eccentric preferred retinal locations. The aim of this study is to review the influence of MIOL on quality of vision in patients with retinal diseases. Methods We reviewed the PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies using the following keywords: multifocal intraocular lens, cataract surgery, cataract extraction, lens exchange, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, and contrast sensitivity. Results Studies evaluating CS in MIOLs present conflicting results: MIOLs either did not influence CS or resulted in worse performance under low-illuminance conditions and higher spatial frequencies when compared to monofocal IOLs. Nevertheless, MIOLs preserved CS levels within the age-matched normal range. Two studies reported that patients with concurrent retinal diseases receiving a MIOL, both unilaterally and bilaterally, reported a significant improvement in visual-related outcomes. Individuals with a monofocal IOL in one eye and a MIOL in the fellow eye reported greater subjective satisfaction with the MIOL. Conclusion We were unable to find evidence suggesting that patients with retinal diseases should be advised against MIOLs. Nevertheless, more research is needed to address the aforementioned concerns and to optimize the use of MIOLs in eyes with retinal disease.

scholarly journals Visual performance of four types of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses and a review of articles

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-365
Author(s):  
Farideh Doroodgar ◽  
◽  
Azad Sanginabadi ◽  
Farid Karimian ◽  
Sana Niazi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Signed Rank ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The One ◽  
Post Hoc

AIM: To compare the clinical outcomes of a variety of multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in patients diagnosed with presbyopia or cataracts. METHODS: This clinical trial study included 141 patients (282 eyes) with different MIOLs implantation. The Symfony (60 eyes), the ReSTOR (100 eyes), the AT LISAtri (60 eyes), and the PanOptix (62 eyes) intraocular lenses were evaluated in this prospective interventional study. The near, intermediate, and distant visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, and defocus curve were measured as valid criteria. To statistically analyze the results, we used the Statistical Package for Social Science software, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank t, the one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey's post-hoc test in our analysis. Moreover, we conducted a detailed literature search on the PubMed database in English about MIOLs, in total 59 studies were included in this review article. RESULTS: The four approaches did not show any significant difference in the best-corrected distance visual acuity (P>0.05). The defocus curves at the contrast of 100% showed that trifocal IOLs had better intermediate performance than the bifocal IOL (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between AT LISAtri and PanOptix lenses for visual acuity at all distances. The eyes with PanOptix, Symfony, and AT LISAtri IOL showed better contrast sensitivity than those ReSTOR at spatial frequencies of 1, 3, and 6 cpd in photopic and mesopic conditions (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: All four groups of the multifocal lenses were satisfying in terms of distance and near vision. Also, the group of trifocal lenses led to satisfactory outcomes in intermediate vision, without degradation in quality of vision.

scholarly journals Analyzing the reasons for patients’ dissatisfaction with the results of multifocal intraocular lens implantation

2014 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-519
Author(s):  
K S Ivonin
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Intraocular Lens Implantation ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lens ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Spatial Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Lens Implantation ◽  
Light Side

Aim. To analyze the causes for patients’ dissatisfaction with the results of multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Methods. The research is based on the results of cataract surgeries in 220 patients (50 patients were implanted multifocal refractive intraocular «M-flex» lens, 40 - multifocal intraocular «Gradiol» lens, 64 - multifocal intraocular «Accord» lens, 66 - monofocal intraocular lens). Pre-and post-operative examination included visual acuity test (with and without correction to near, far and moderate distances), determination of the nearest point of clear vision, contrast sensitivity study using the «Zebra» software, stereo vision test, pupil diameter measuring, refractometry, keratometry, binocular vision color tests, patient questioning. Pre-operative evaluation was performed 1 day prior to surgery. Post-operative observation was carried out 1 week, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the surgery. Results. No statistically significant difference (p 0.05) in uncorrected visual acuity at different light intensity - 102 lux and 416 lux - was found between the groups with different types of multifocal intraocular lenses. In groups with multifocal intraocular lenses light side effects were observed in 46-52.5% of patients. However, there was no link between the light side effects and patients’ satisfaction with results of the surgery. Reduction of spatial contrast sensitivity parameters was registered in all groups of multifocal intraocular lenses patients compared to patients with monofocal intraocular lenses (p 0.05). According to the survey results, 92.5 to 94% of patients with multifocal intraocular lenses did not report decreased visual acuity on moderate distance. Conclusion. The most important reason for patients’ dissatisfaction with the results of the multifocal intraocular lenses implanting was the reduction of spatial-contrast sensitivity parameters. Bilateral multifocal intraocular lenses implanting improved the contrast ratio.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hirotaka Tanabe ◽  
Hitoshi Tabuchi ◽  
Tomohiro Shojo ◽  
Tomofusa Yamauchi ◽  
Kosuke Takase
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Wald Test ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Visual Performance ◽  
Basic Design ◽  
Night Time ◽  
Multifocal Iol ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Near Visual Acuity

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Comparison of visual and optical quality of monofocal versus multifocal intraocular lenses

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Altemir-Gomez ◽  
Maria S Millan ◽  
Fidel Vega ◽  
Francisco Bartol-Puyal ◽  
Galadriel Gimenez-Calvo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Transfer Function ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Modulation Transfer Function ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Optical Quality ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Modulation Transfer ◽  
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Objective: To compare visual quality in patients implanted with Tecnis® monofocal (ZCB00) and multifocal (ZMB00) intraocular lenses taking into account their optical quality measured in vitro with an eye model. Methods: In total, 122 patients participated in this study: 44 implanted with monofocal and 78 with multifocal intraocular lenses. Measurements of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were performed. The optical quality of the intraocular lenses was evaluated in three image planes (distance, intermediate and near) using an eye model on a test bench. The metric considered was the area under the curve of the modulation transfer function. Results: Optical quality at the far focus of the monofocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 66.97) was considerably better than that with the multifocal lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 32.54). However, no significant differences were observed between groups at the distance-corrected visual acuity. Distance-corrected near vision was better in the multifocal (0.15 ± 0.20 logMAR) than that in the monofocal group (0.43 ± 0.21 logMAR, p < 0.001), which correlated with the better optical quality at near reached by the multifocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 29.11) in comparison with the monofocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 5.0). In intermediate vision, visual acuity was 0.28 ± 0.16 logMAR (multifocal) and 0.36 ± 0.14 logMAR (monofocal) with p = 0.014, also in good agreement with the values measured in the optical quality (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 10.69 (multifocal) and 8.86 (monofocal)). The contrast sensitivity was similar in almost all frequencies. Pelli–Robson was slightly better in the monofocal (1.73) than in the multifocal group (1.64; p = 0.023). Conclusion: Patients implanted with multifocal ZMB00 achieved a distance visual acuity similar to those implanted with monofocal ZCB00, but showed significantly better intermediate and near visual acuity. A correlation was found between intraocular lenses’ optical quality and patients’ visual acuity. Contrast sensitivity was very similar between the multifocal and monofocal groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document