Bilateral reading performance of 4 multifocal intraocular lens models and a monofocal intraocular lens under bright lighting conditions

Rasp, Max; Bachernegg, Alexander; Seyeddain, Orang; Ruckhofer, Josef; Emesz, Martin; Stoiber, J.; Grabner, Günther; Dexl, Alois K.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.07.027

Cited by 42 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in reading speed, reading acuity, or critical print size measured at 70% and 100% contrast levels. Compared with the results described by Rasp et al, 35 our study found better reading acuity and speed but similar or slightly lower critical print size. A possible explanation is that our study population was younger than that described by Rasp et al Spectacle independence, a desired outcome of cataract surgery with multifocal IOLs, was high and in line with results in previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

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

Jonker¹,

Bauer²,

Makhotkina³

et al. 2015

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

127

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

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

Jonker¹,

Bauer²,

Makhotkina³

et al. 2015

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

127

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the purpose of statistical pooling, we only used the Alio study with larger sample size and the Allen study because it had the outcomes of interest. El-Maghraby 1992 37 Steinert 1992 16 Percival 1993 29Rosetti 1994 33 Allen 1996 18 Haaskjold 1998 17 Javitt 2000 19 Kamlesh 2001 30 Leyland 2002 31 Nijkamp 2004 20 Sen 2004 35 Marchini, 2007 15 Zeng, 2007 21 Cillino, 2008 26 Harman, 2008 21 Palmer, 2008 32 Zhao,2009 25 Alio, 2011 14 Alio, 2011 27 Jusufovic 2011 36 Ji, 2012 23 Peng, 2012 24 Rasp, 2012 34 Wilkins, 2013 13 Labiris, 2015 28 = low risk of bias = high risk of bias = unknown…”

Section: Description Of the Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery and lens replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Khandelwal

Jun

Mak

et al. 2019

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) offer the possibility of spectacle-free vision following cataract surgery compared to standard IOLs. Existing systematic reviews have generally concluded that multifocal IOLs result in better uncorrected near vision and greater spectacle independence, but more unwanted visual phenomena such as glare and halos, compared to monofocal IOLs. However, the certainty of evidence has been low for most outcomes, and pooled analyses have grouped together technologically obsolete lenses with newer lenses, potentially obscuring differences in performance across different lens types. Methods We performed a systematic review searching for RCTs of a multifocal IOL to a standard IOL or monovision that reported spectacle independence, visual acuity, or quality of life. Databases were searched from 1/1/2006-4/30/2017. Existing reviews were used to identify older studies. Title/abstract screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Where possible, random effects metaanalysis was performed to synthesize results. In addition to comparing multifocal IOLs as a group to monofocal IOLs, we also compared newer diffractive lenses to obsolete or refractive lenses. Results Twenty-five eligible studies were identified. There was no difference in pooled estimates of corrected or uncorrected distance vision between multifocal and standard IOLs. Compared to monofocal IOLs, multifocal IOLs had statistically significantly better pooled results for the outcome of near vision (10 studies, 1025 patients, mean difference in logMAR of-0.26 (95% CI-0.37,-0.15)); spectacle dependence (12 studies, 1237 patients, relative risk of 0.27 (95% CI 0.20, 0.38)) and borderline significantly better quality of vision (6 studies, 596 patients, standardized mean difference of-0.54, (95% CI-1.12, 0.04)). Compared to monofocal IOLs, multifocal IOLs had statistically significantly worse pooled results for the outcomes of glare (9 studies, 847 patients, risk ratio of 1.36 (95% CI 1.15, 1.61) and halos (7 studies, 754 patients, risk ratio of 3.14 (95% CI 1.63, 6.08). Newer multifocal lenses had statistically significantly better outcomes than older diffractive lenses or refractive lenses, when compared to monofocal IOLs, in near vision, quality of vision, and risk of halos. Conclusions Multifocal IOLs compared to standard IOLs or monovision result in better uncorrected near vision and a higher proportion of patients who achieve spectacle independence, but greater risk of unwanted visual phenomena. Newer diffractive lenses may be better than refractive lenses in near vision and quality of vision outcomes, with less risk of halos than older diffractive lenses and refractive lenses.

show abstract

“…Diffractive multifocal IOLs have been shown to provide better uncorrected near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, reading performance and less photic phenomenon than that obtained with a refractive multifocal in some,7 8 but not all studies 9. In vitro optical testing also suggests that diffractive IOL designs should provide better optical quality and are more robust to tilt and decentration than concentric, refractive segmented IOLs 10.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens

Schmickler¹,

Bautista

Goes³

et al. 2013

Br J Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bilateral reading performance of 4 multifocal intraocular lens models and a monofocal intraocular lens under bright lighting conditions

Abstract: Drs. Grabner and Dexl were patent owners of the Salzburg Reading Desk technology (now owned by SRD-Vision, LLC). No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Cited by 42 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

Effectiveness of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery and lens replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About