Comparison of Visual Outcomes after Bilateral Implantation of Extended Range of Vision and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 460-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramón Ruiz-Mesa ◽  
Antonio Abengózar-Vela ◽  
Ana Aramburu ◽  
María Ruiz-Santos
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Patient Questionnaire ◽  
Visual Outcomes ◽  
Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Extended Range ◽  
Near Visual Acuity ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Purpose To compare visual outcomes after cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of 2 intraocular lenses (IOLs): extended range of vision and trifocal. Methods Each group of this prospective study comprised 40 eyes (20 patients). Phacoemulsification followed by bilateral implantation of a FineVision IOL (group 1) or a Symfony IOL (group 2) was performed. The following outcomes were assessed up to 1 year postoperatively: binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 60 cm, binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm, spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, defocus curves, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity, halometry, posterior capsule opacification (PCO), and responses to a patient questionnaire. Results The mean binocular values in group 1 and group 2, respectively, were SE -0.15 ± 0.25 D and -0.19 ± 0.18 D; UDVA 0.01 ± 0.03 logMAR and 0.01 ± 0.02 logMAR; UIVA 0.11 ± 0.08 logMAR and 0.09 ± 0.08 logMAR; UNVA 0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR and 0.17 ± 0.06 logMAR. Difference in UNVA between IOLs (p<0.05) was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity, halometry, or PCO between groups. Defocus curves were similar between groups from 0 D to -2 D, but showed significant differences from -2.50 D to -4.00 D (p<0.05). Conclusions Both IOLs provided excellent distance and intermediate visual outcomes. The FineVision IOL showed better near visual acuity. Predictability of the refractive results and optical performance were excellent; all patients achieved spectacle independence. The 2 IOLs gave similar and good contrast sensitivity in photopic and mesopic conditions and low perception of halos by patients.

scholarly journals Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Visual Quality and Visual Function of Two Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses Made from the Same Material, but with Different Design and Optics

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (15) ◽  
pp. 3268
Author(s):  
Ladislav Viktor Nováček ◽  
Marie Němcová ◽  
Kateřina Tyx ◽  
Kristýna Lahodová ◽  
Leoš Rejmont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Visual Function ◽  
Comparative Investigation ◽  
Optical Quality ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Near Visual Acuity

This semi-prospective, parallel, comparative investigation evaluated the clinical outcomes and quality of vision (contrast sensitivity, visual function, dysphotopsia, spectacle use, overall satisfaction) after mono- or bilateral implantation of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOL)—the Liberty® 677MY or the AT LISA® tri 839M—in 50 eyes of 25 cataract patients. Clinical outcomes were assessed 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Eighty-nine percent of eyes implanted with the Liberty IOL and 59% of eyes implanted with the AT LISA IOL achieved a refractive outcome ±0.5 diopters of the target (emmetropia). Refractive outcomes were stable with both lenses. The proportions of eyes with 20/20 uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and 20/20 uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were higher in the Liberty group than in the AT LISA group (UDVA: 56% vs. 41%; UNVA: 83% vs. 66%). Optical quality assessment results were comparable for the two IOLs. Superior photopic contrast sensitivity was found with the Liberty lens. The rate of Nd:YAG capsulotomy at the 12-month follow-up was 16.7% in the Liberty group and 40.6% for the AT LISA IOL. Considering that both lenses are made from the same material, we propose that the noted differences in clinical outcomes may derive from differences in design and optical surface between the two IOLs.

A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramón Ruiz-Mesa ◽  
Antonio Abengózar-Vela ◽  
María Ruiz-Santos
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Visual Outcomes ◽  
Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Corrected Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Near Visual Acuity ◽  
Reading Distance ◽  
Continuous Range

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the visual outcomes and ocular optical performance of the PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and Symfony extended range of vision IOL. Methods: Sixty-eight eyes of 34 patients were divided into 2 groups: 20 patients with the PanOptix IOL and 14 patients with the Symfony IOL. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 80 and 60 cm, and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm were evaluated. Additionally, preferred reading distance with best-corrected distance and visual acuity at that distance, binocular defocus curves, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity, photic phenomena, and monocular total higher order aberrations (HOAs) were also measured. Results: The visual outcomes for PanOptix and Symfony IOL groups, respectively, were as follows: BCDVA: -0.03 ± 0.03 and -0.02 ± 0.03 logMAR; DCIVA at 80 cm: 0.06 ± 0.06 and 0.06 ± 0.04 logMAR; DCIVA at 60 cm: 0.06 ± 0.10 and 0.05 ± 0.04 logMAR; DCNVA: 0.04 ± 0.06 and 0.20 ± 0.07 logMAR (p<0.001). Similar preferred reading distances were found for both groups (37.0 ± 4.6 and 38.9 ± 5.7 cm, respectively). The visual acuities at those distances were 0.09 ± 0.08 and 0.19 ± 0.08 logMAR (p<0.001), respectively. The defocus curves showed significantly better outcomes for the PanOptix IOL from -2.0 to -4.0 D (p<0.001). No significant differences were found for contrast sensitivity, halometry, or HOAs between the groups. Conclusions: The PanOptix and Symfony IOLs showed comparable visual performance at distance and intermediate. However, the PanOptix IOL provided better near and preferred reading distance VAs and showed a more continuous range of vision than the Symfony IOL.

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.

Photopic and Mesopic Performance of 2 Different Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose M. Martinez-de-la-Casa ◽  
Jesús Carballo-Alvarez ◽  
Javier Garcia-Bella ◽  
Jose M. Vazquez-Molini ◽  
Laura Morales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Visual Quality ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
High Contrast ◽  
Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Corrected Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Study Test ◽  
Distance Correction

Purpose To assess photopic and mesopic vision in patients implanted with 2 different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods Fifty patients with cataract in both eyes had surgery with bilateral implantation of a trifocal FineVision (FV, n = 25) or AT LISA tri 839MP (LisaTri, n = 25) IOL. Three months after surgery, high-contrast photopic uncorrected distance visual acuity and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were determined using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study test. Intermediate (65 cm) and near (40 cm) visual acuity were also measured, both with best distance correction (DCIVA and DCNVA, respectively). The CSV1000 test chart was used for binocular and monocular contrast sensitivity. Defocus curves were constructed under photopic and mesopic conditions. Results Mean patient age was 68.4 ± 5.5 years (FV) and 67.3 ± 5.6 years (LisaTri) (p = 0.540). No differences were found in terms of visual acuity between the groups. The CDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA were 0.05 ± 0.06, 0.25 ± 0.10, and 0.13 ± 0.10 logMAR for FV and -0.04 ± 0.11, 0.32 ± 0.09, and 0.12 ± 0.11 logMAR for LisaTri, respectively (p = 0.09, p = 0.08, and p = 0.12). Photopic and mesopic defocus curves were comparable between the 2 IOL groups (p>0.05). Mesopic values were significantly worse than photopic in both groups for all the measured values (p<0.001). No differences in contrast sensitivity were observed between the 2 IOL groups (p>0.05). Conclusions Both trifocal diffractive IOLs provided good visual quality with a statistically significant decrease in mesopic conditions.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Liu ◽  
Yi Dong ◽  
Yan Wang
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Depth Of Focus ◽  
Extended Depth Of Focus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Near Visual Acuity

Abstract Background : This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenes (IOLs) in cataract surgery. Methods: All comparative clinical trials that involved bilaterally implanting EDOF IOLs in patients with cataract were retrieved from the literature database. We used random effects models to pool weighted mean differences (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Results: Nine studies with a total of 1336 eyes were identified. The subgroup analysis was conducted according to the type of IOLs used in the control group. Compared with monofocal IOLs, EDOF IOLs produced better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (WMD: -0.17, 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.08, P = 0.0001) and uncorrected near visual acuity (WMD: -0.17, 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.12, P < 0.00001). EDOF IOLs resulted in reduced contrast sensitivity, more frequent halos, however, higher spectacle independence (RR: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.06 to 7.46, P = 0.04) than monofocal IOLs. Compared with trifocal IOLs, EDOF IOLs produced worse near visual acuity (MD: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.13, P<0.0001). EDOF IOLs performed better than trifocal IOls in contrast sensitivity, and there were no significant difference in halos and spectacle independence. Serious postoperative complications were rare, with no adverse events were reported in most studies. Conclusions: Increasing the risk of contrast reduction and more frequent halos, EDOF IOLs provided better intermediate and near VAs than monofocal IOLs. At the expense of near vision, patients receiving EDOF IOLs have better contrast sensitivity than those receiving trifocal IOLs. Halo incidence and spectacle independence of EDOF IOLs were similar to those of trifocal IOLs.

Functional acuity contrast sensitivity assessment in young and middle age healthy persons at the day time with and without glare

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-25
Author(s):  
Jelena Sidorova ◽  
Rasa Čiumbaraitė ◽  
Džastina Čebatorienė ◽  
Mantas Banevičius ◽  
Rasa Liutkevičienė
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Sensitivity Assessment ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Snellen Chart ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Healthy Persons ◽  
Group 1

Background. As people age, their vision becomes less clear; they can clearly see big objects but experience problems discerning minor things and minor details. The functional acuity contrast test is a very sensitive method used for visual system evaluation which may help to detect the beginning of the disease in case the visual acuity is still normal. Purpose. To determine functional acuity contrast sensitivity in young and in middle age healthy persons at the day time with and without glare. Materials and methods. We examined 40–49 yrs (Group 1), and 50– 59 yrs (Group 2) healthy persons. The typical Snellen chart (the direc­tion of the gap in Landolt C) was used for the non-corrected and the bestcorrected visual acuity testing. Functional acuity contrast sensitivity was measured employing a Ginsburg Box, VSCR- CST-6500, at the day time with and without glare. Results. Functional acuity contrast sensitivity remained very similar in the age groups of 40–49 years and 50–59 years. However, statistically, it significantly decreased at day time without glare (18 cycle / degree) spatial frequencies (p = 0.05). Results in Group 1 as compared to Group 2 decreased from 3.09% to 51.7% at the day time without glare and from 2.16% to 11.61% at the day time with glare. Conclusion. The facts are that contrast sensitivity remained very similar in the age groups of 40–49 years and 50–59 years at the day time with and without glare.

scholarly journals Long Term Clinical and Visual Outcomes of Retrofixated Iris Claw Lenses Implantation in Complicated Cases

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sri Ganesh ◽  
Sheetal Brar ◽  
Kirti Relekar
Keyword(s):  
Visual Outcome ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Safety Index ◽  
Visual Outcomes ◽  
Lens Implantation ◽  
Distant Visual Acuity ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Iris Claw ◽  
Group 1

Aims: To evaluate the visual outcomes and complications after implantation of retrofixated iris claw (RFIC) lens in various challenging situations. Settings and Design: Retrospective, single centre, 8 year clinical audit. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of cases who underwent RFIC lens implantation alone (group 1) or in combination with vitreoretinal (VR), corneal or glaucoma procedures (group 2) was performed. The main outcomes evaluated were corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA) and postoperative complications. The mean follow up was 13.09±6.8 (range 6-24) months. Results: The study involved 100 eyes of 83 patients with mean age of 51.1±25.4 years. Group 1 included 59 eyes and group 2 had 41 eyes. In group 1, the mean CDVA improved from 0.86±0.81 to 0.38±0.51 LogMAR (p<0.001) with 72.8% eyes having gain in lines (≥ 2 lines) of CDVA with safety index of 1.73. The mean CDVA in group 2 improved from 0.71±0.65 to 0.38±0.34 LogMAR (p=0.003) with 65.8% eyes having gain in lines (≥ 2 lines) of CDVA with a safety index of 1.54. Group 2 showed a higher complication rate of 36.59% compared to group 1 (20.34%). Significant complications noted were secondary glaucoma (8%), disenclavation of haptic (4%), subluxation of RFIC lens (1%). Conclusion: The visual outcome with RFIC lenses when combined with other intraocular procedures is mainly affected by the complexity of co-existing pathologies .The complications are more related to the combined procedures performed rather than RFIC lens implantation alone. This may still be acceptable when complication profile of other intraocular lenses is evaluated in similar challenging situations.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes after Binocular Implantation of a New Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian T. A. Kretz ◽  
Detlev Breyer ◽  
Vasilios F. Diakonis ◽  
Karsten Klabe ◽  
Franziska Henke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Iol Implantation ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity ◽  
Trifocal Iol ◽  
Defocus Curve ◽  
Near Visual Acuity

Purpose.To evaluate visual, refractive, and contrast sensitivity outcomes, as well as the incidence of pseudophakic photic phenomena and patient satisfaction after bilateral diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.Methods. This prospective nonrandomized study included consecutive patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP, Carl Zeiss Meditec). Distance, intermediate, and near visual outcomes were evaluated as well as the defocus curve and the refractive outcomes 3 months after surgery. Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction, and halo perception were also evaluated.Results.Seventy-six eyes of 38 patients were included; 90% of eyes showed a spherical equivalent within ±0.50 diopters 3 months after surgery. All patients had a binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity of 0.00 LogMAR or better and a binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity of 0.10 LogMAR or better, 3 months after surgery. Furthermore, 85% of patients achieved a binocular uncorrected near visual acuity of 0.10 LogMAR or better.Conclusions.Trifocal diffractive IOL implantation seems to provide an effective restoration of visual function for far, intermediate, and near distances, providing high levels of visual quality and patient satisfaction.

scholarly journals Associations Between Contrast Sensitivity and Aging

Medicina ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasa Liutkevičienė ◽  
Džastina Čebatorienė ◽  
Giedrė Liutkevičienė ◽  
Vytautas Jašinskas ◽  
Dalia Žaliūnienė
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Corrected Visual Acuity ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 5 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Objective. The aim of this study was to assess age-related visual functions (visual acuity and contrast sensitivity) and compare the results by different age groups. Material and Methods. A total of 231 patients were examined. The patients were divided into 5 age groups: 10 patients in group 1, 30–39 years; 40 patients in the group 2, 40–49 years; 77 patients in the group 3, 50–59 years; 71 patients in the group 4, 60–70 years; and 33 patients in the group 5, 71–85 years. A typical Snellen’s chart (the direction of the gap in Landolt C) was used for noncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity testing. Contrast sensitivity was evaluated by employing a Ginsburg Box, VSCR-CST-6500. Results. Noncorrected visual acuity was significantly better in the group 2 than the group 3 (0.86 [0.28] vs. 0.69 [0.33], P=0.018). Moreover, noncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the group 4 than the group 5 (0.52 [0.35] vs. 0.35 [0.28], P<0.001; and 0.9 [0.21] vs. 0.69 [0.27], P<0.005, respectively). Contrast sensitivity at the nighttime without glare was significantly worse in the group 2 than the group 1 at the spatial frequencies of 3, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (P=0.001, P=0.05, and P=0.01, respectively). The patients in the group 2 had significantly worse contrast sensitivity at the nighttime and daytime with glare at the spatial frequencies of 1.5, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (P=0.054, P=0.04, and P=0.01 and P=0.011, P=0.031, and P=0.011, respectively). The greatest differences in contrast sensitivity were observed between the groups 4 and 5, and it was 2 to 4 times better in the group 4. Comparing these groups, all the differences at the nighttime and daytime with and without glare were significant. Conclusions. Contrast sensitivity was worst among the oldest persons (71–85 years), and it began to worsen already in the persons aged 40–49 years. Contrast sensitivity was very similar in the age groups of 40–49 and 50–59 years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document