Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power

Maxwell, W. Andrew; Cionni, Robert J.; Lehmann, Robert; Modi, Satish

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.06.041

Cited by 87 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2(b), (c) really mean the multifocal function of ReSTOR or not. They are quite different from defocus curves in ReSTOR implantation patients [13][14][15]. We expected the second peak of pseudo-accommodation curvesat +2.5Dbecause the SND1 model has the addition of+3 D (+2.5D at the spectacle plane).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Double-Pass System (Optical Quality Analysis System) for Analysis of the Multifocal Function of a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens (Acrysof ReSTOR®) Compared to a Monofocal Intraocular Lens (Acrysof IQ®)

Hwang

Shin

Joo

2014

Journal of the Optical Society of Korea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we objectively determined whether the ReSTOR as a multifocal IOL (intraocular lens) has a multifocal function compared to the IQ as a monofocal IOL in vivo by OQAS (Optical Quality Analysis System). Eighteen patients who had cataract surgery with implantation of ReSTOR (27 eyes) and 15 patients with IQ (21 eyes), were included inthis study. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA)and distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) were measured. After setting the artificial pupil size to 3 mm, we performed 'Optical quality'. We inputted defocusdiopters of (objective spherical refraction)(far), (objective spherical refraction-1.25 D)(intermediate),(objective spherical refraction-2.5 D)(near), and (objective spherical refraction-3.5 D)(very near) into 'selected spherical refraction' simulating theoptical quality at far, intermediate, and near distance. We changed the pupil size to 5 mm and repeated thesame measurements. The UCDVA and CDVA did not show significant differences between the 2 groups. But, theUCNVA and DCNVA of the ReSTOR group were better than those of the IQ group (p=0.000, p=0.000). For 3 mm pupil, at far distance, modulation transfer function (MTF) cut off and point spread function (PSF) width at 50% of ReSTOR were worse than those of IQ (p=0.039, p=0.020). At intermediate distance, MTF cut off, Strehl ratio and PSF width at 50% of ReSTOR were worse than those of IQ (p=0.001, p=0.001, p=0.000). At near distance, MTF cut off of ReSTOR was worse than that of IQ (p=0.033). At very near distance, MTF cut off and Strehl ratio of ReSTOR were worse than those of IQ (p=0.002, p=0.002), but PSF width at 50% of ReSTOR was better than that of IQ. For 5 mm pupil, most parameters at each distance, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Only PSF width at 50% of ReSTOR were worse than those of IQ at intermediate distance (p=0.013). It was impossible to show the multifocal function of ReSTOR compared to the IQ byOQAS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Double-Pass System (Optical Quality Analysis System) for Analysis of the Multifocal Function of a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens (Acrysof ReSTOR®) Compared to a Monofocal Intraocular Lens (Acrysof IQ®)

Hwang

Shin

Joo

2014

Journal of the Optical Society of Korea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All studies 20 30,36,38,40 show that the new AcrySof ReSTOR aspheric IOL with a +3.00 D addition provides better intermediate visual performance than AcrySof ReSTOR aspheric IOL with +4.00 D addition, with no decrease for either distance or near visual acuities. It seems that the lower addition of the IOL plays an important role in the improvement of visual acuity for intermediate distances.…”

Section: Hybrid Multifocal Iols Madrid-costa Cerviño Ferrer-blascomentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Many studies 20,24,26,27,29,30,32,[35][36][37][38]40,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] have measured the CSF after hybrid multifocal IOL implantation. It has been suggested that CSF under photopic and mesopic conditions, after multifocal IOL implantation, must be lower than that obtained after monofocal IOL implantation, but still within the normal range.…”

Section: Contrast Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual and optical performance with hybrid multifocal intraocular lenses

Madrid-Costa

Cerviño

Ferrer-Blasco

et al. 2010

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past years, the wish to become independent of spectacles has been growing among cataract and presbyopic patients due to many factors, such as the increase in near visual demands, the aesthetic need for a spectacle-free image and ageing of refractive surgery patients, among others. This review assesses recently published studies that analyse visual and optical performance through different metrics of eyes implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), particularly hybrid IOL designs. The published evidence suggests that hybrid multifocal IOLs provide very good outcomes in a number of visual and optical performance parameters. Patients implanted with this type of IOL obtain a satisfactory full range of visual functions, including patients of particular characteristics such as highly ametropic or post-LASIK.

show abstract

“…Estudo comparativo de desempenho óptico e resultado visual entre duas lentes multifocais difrativas: Tecnis ZMB00 e AcrySof SN6AD1 remain challenging, requiring careful patient selection since some patients could experience less clarity, decrease in contrast, and photopic phenomena when two images are overlapped (1,(5)(6)(7) . Moreover, the same optical quality cannot be expected as with a monofocal lens (3,6) .…”

Section: Multifocal Iol Sn6ad1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only in the United States, two million procedures are annually performed due to an increase in early diagnoses and demands of patients who wish to maintain productivity and daily activities (1) . Multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) were introduced in the early 1980s and offer the benefit of promoting both near and distance vision simultaneously (2,4) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study on optical performance and visual outcomes between two diffractive multifocal lenses: AMO Tecnis® ZMB00 and AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® Multifocal IOL SN6AD1

Chaves¹,

Hida²,

Tzeliks³

et al. 2016

Arquivos Brasileiros De Oftalmologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the optical performance and visual outcomes between two diffractive multifocal lenses: AMO Tecnis® ZMB00 and AcrySof® ReSTOR® SN6AD1. Methods: This prospective, non-randomized comparative study included the assessment of 74 eyes in 37 patients referred for cataract surgery and candidates for multifocal intraocular lens implants. Exclusion criteria included existence of any other eye disease, previous eye surgery, high axial myopia, preoperative corneal astigmatism of >1.00 cylindrical diopter (D), and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Ophthalmological evaluation included the measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), with analysis of contrast sensitivity (CS), wavefront, and visual defocus curve. Results: Postoperative UDVA was 0.09 and 0.08 logMAR in the SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups, respectively (p=0.868); postoperative CDVA was 0.04 and 0.02 logMAR in the SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups, respectively (p=0.68); DCIVA was 0.17 and 0.54 logMAR in the SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups, respectively (p=0.000); and DCNVA was 0.04 and 0.09 logMAR in the SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups, respectively (p=0.001). In both cases, there was an improvement in the spherical equivalent and UDVA (p<0.05). Under photopic conditions, the SN6AD1 group had better CS at low frequencies without glare (p=0.04); however, the ZMB00 group achieved better sensitivity at high frequencies with glare (p=0.003). The SN6AD1 and ZMB00 lenses exhibited similar behavior for intermediate vision, according to the defocus curve; however, the ZMB00 group showed a shorter reading distance than the SN6AD1 group. There were no significant differences regarding aberrometry between the two groups. Conclusion: Both lenses promoted better quality of vision for both long and short distances and exhibited a similar behavior for intermediate vision. The SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups showed better results for CS under photopic conditions at low and high spatial frequencies, respectively. Keywords

show abstract

Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power

Cited by 87 publications

References 28 publications

Double-Pass System (Optical Quality Analysis System) for Analysis of the Multifocal Function of a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens (Acrysof ReSTOR®) Compared to a Monofocal Intraocular Lens (Acrysof IQ®)

Double-Pass System (Optical Quality Analysis System) for Analysis of the Multifocal Function of a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens (Acrysof ReSTOR®) Compared to a Monofocal Intraocular Lens (Acrysof IQ®)

Visual and optical performance with hybrid multifocal intraocular lenses

Comparative study on optical performance and visual outcomes between two diffractive multifocal lenses: AMO Tecnis® ZMB00 and AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® Multifocal IOL SN6AD1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About