Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.54(8) > 1009446

TOOLS
Park, Hwang, and Joo: Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes Between 2 Types of Multifocal Aspheric Intraocular Lenses
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013;54(8):1199-1207.

Published online: 7 September 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.8.1199

Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes Between 2 Types of Multifocal Aspheric Intraocular Lenses

Yu Li Park, MD, Gyu Yeon Hwang, MD, Choun Ki Joo, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The Catholic University of Korea School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Choun Ki Joo, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital #222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-701, Korea Tel: 82-2-2258-7621, Fax: 82-2-599-7405, E-mail: ckjoo@catholic.ac.kr

This study was presented as a narration at the 108th Annual Meeting of the Korean Ophthalmology Society 2012.

Received 21 December 20125 March 2013       Accepted 5 June 2013

Copyright © 2013 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of the OptiVis TM Multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and compare the clinical outcome be-tween OptiVis TM and AcrySofⓇ ReSTORⓇ D1.

Methods

We reviewed 20 eyes of 11 patients implanted with OptiVis TM and 20 eyes of 10 patients implanted with AcrySofⓇ ReSTORⓇ D1. The clinical outcomes of the 2 IOLs were evaluated 1 and 2 months postoperatively and consisted of distant, intermediate, and near visual acuity, depth of focus, contrast sensitivity, wavefront aberration, patient satisfaction, de-centration and IOL tilt.

Results

Intermediate vision was better in the OptiVis TM group. There were no statistical differences between the 2 groups with respect to distant vision, near vision and wavefront aberration, contrast sensitivity, decentration and IOL tilt. Depth of focus was deeper in the OptiVis TM group at the intermediate visual acuity zone. There were no statistically significant result differences between postoperative 1 and 2 months.

Conclusions

The OptiVis TM multifocal IOL provided satisfactory visual acuity at distance, near, and intermediate with no apparent reduction in contrast sensitivity. The IOL can be effective for improving patient satisfaction after cataract surgery as well as correcting presbyopia.

Keywords: Depth of focus, Intermediate vision, Multifocal intraocular lens, Presbyopia

References

1. Martínez Palmer A, Gómez Faiña P, España Albelda A. . Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24:257–64.
crossref
2. Goes FJ. Refractive lens exchange with the diffractive multifocal tecnis ZM900 intraocular lens. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24:243–50.
crossref
3. Fernández-Vega L, Alfonso JF, Rodríguez PP, Montés-Micó R. Clear lens extraction with multifocal apodized intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114:1491–8.
4. Fernández-Vega L, Alfonso JF, Montés-Micó R, Amhaz H. Visual acuity tolerance to residual refractive errors in patients with an apodized diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:199–204.
crossref
5. Lee DY, Roh JH, Shyn KH. 2005 Survey for KSCRS members: current trends in cataract surgery in Korea. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:485–92.
6. Lane SS, Morris M, Nordan L. . Multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2006; 19:89–105.
7. Hütz WW, Eckhardt HB, Röhrig B, Grolmus R. Reading ability with 3 multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:2015–21.
crossref
8. Kohnen T, Allen D, Boureau C. . European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:584–e1.
crossref
9. Blaylock JF, Si Z, Vickers C. Visual and refractive status at differ-ent focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal in-traocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1464–73.
crossref
10. Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Aggarwal RK, Kasaby S. ReSTOR intraocular lens implantation in cataract surgery: quality of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1459–63.
crossref
11. Sallet G. Refractive outcome after bilateral implantation of an apo-dized diffractive intraocular lens. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2006; 299:67–73.
12. Souza CE, Muccioli C, Soriano ES. . Visual performance of AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL: a prospective com-parative trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 141:827–32.
crossref
13. Cumming JS, Colvard DM, Dell SJ. . Clinical evaluation of the Crystalens AT-45 accommodating intraocular lens: results of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:812–25.
14. Gunenc U, Celik L. Long-term experience with mixing and matching refractive Array and diffractive CeeOn multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24:233–42.
crossref
15. Goes FJ. Visual results following implantation of a refractive mul-tifocal IOL in one eye and a diffractive multifocal IOL in the con-tralateral eye. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24:300–5.
crossref
16. Bi H, Cui Y, Ma X. . Early clinical evaluation of Acrysof ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens for treatment of cataract. Ophthalmologica. 2008; 222:11–6.
crossref
17. Pepose JS, Qazi MA, Davies J. . Visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, Rezoom, and ReSTOR in-traocular lense implants. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 144:347–57.
18. Apple DJ, Sims J. Harold Ridley and the invention of the intra-ocular lens. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996; 40:279–92.
crossref
19. Piovella M, Bosc JM. Clinical evaluation of the OptiVis™ multi-focal intraocular lens. Adv Ther. 2011; 28:1012–20.
crossref
20. Lee HS, Park SH, Kim MS. Clinical results and some problems of multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lens implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1235–41.
crossref
21. Caballero A, Losada M, Lopez JM. . Decentration of intra-ocular lenses implanted after intercapsular cataract extraction (enveloped technique). J Cataract Refract Surg. 1991; 17:330–4.

Figure 1.
The design of OptiVis TM aspheric multifocal intra-ocular lens.
jkos-54-1199f1.tif
Figure 2.
Contrast sensitivity functions in patients implanted with the OptiVis TM intraocular lens for different lighting conditions ((A) 85 cd/m2 and (B) 3 cd/m2) at 2 month (dashed line = AcrySofⓇ ReSTORⓇ D1, solid line = OptiVis TM).
jkos-54-1199f2.tif
Figure 3.
Visual acuity at photopic and mesopic condition. Blue line = OptiVis TM group, Red line = AcrySofⓇ ReSTORⓇ D1 group.
jkos-54-1199f3.tif
Figure 4.
Visual acuity at various defocus levels. The values are a mean of log MAR visual acuity (* p < 0.05). Red line = OptiVis TM group, Blue line = AcrySofⓇ ReSTORⓇ group.
jkos-54-1199f4.tif
Figure 5.
A capsular tension ring and foldable intraocular lens in the capsular bag. Centration was good and full coverage of the optic with continuous curvilinear capsulorrhexis margin is shown.
jkos-54-1199f5.tif
Table 1.
Baseline preoperative characteristics of two groups
Characteristic IOL type p-value*
OptiVis TM AcrySofⓇ ReSTORⓇ
No. of patients (eyes) 11 (20) 10 (20)
Mean age (years) 59.7 ± 8.2 63.7 ± 7.5 0.651
Sex (M:F) 4:7 4:6 0.215
Preop SE +1.27 ± 1.14 +1.57 ± 2.05 0.846
IOL power 21.0 ± 0.54 21.5 ± 1.57 0.497
UCVA (log MAR) 0.41 ± 0.09 0.45 ± 0.18 0.164
BCVA (log MAR) 0.35 ± 0.08 0.33 ± 0.15 0.284

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

* Mann-Whitney U-test.

Table 2.
Comparison of wavefront aberrations between two groups
OptiVis TM AcrySofⓇ ReSTORⓇ p-value*
RMS total (micron) 1.21 ± 0.47 0.97 ± 0.35 0.716
HOA (micron) 0.35 ± 0.21 0.41 ± 0.25 0.341
SA (micron) 0.00 ± 0.14 -0.02 ± 0.13 0.659
Coma (micron) -0.02 ± 0.08 -0.03 ± 0.05 0.741
Trefoil (micron) 0.04 ± 0.04 -0.02 ± 0.07 0.453

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

RMS = root mean square; HOA = high order aberration; SA = spherical aberration.

* Mann-Whitney U-test.

Table 3.
Comparison of results between two groups at postoperative 2 months
OptiVis TM (n = 20) ReSTORⓇ (n = 20) p-value
Distant (log MAR) UCVA 0.08 ± 0.07 0.09 ± 0.11 0.739
BCVA 0.03 ± 0.08 0.01 ± 0.02 0.094
Intermediate 70 cm (log MAR) UCVA 0.11 ± 0.08 0.32 ± 0.17 0.023*
DCVA 0.11 ± 0.08 0.37 ± 0.21 0.016*
BCVA 0.04 ± 0.11 0.15 ± 0.13 0.047*
Near 40 cm (log MAR) UCVA 0.09 ± 0.10 0.17 ± 0.12 0.517
DCVA 0.06 ± 0.07 0.16 ± 0.13 0.282
BCVA 0.05 ± 0.07 0.06 ± 0.09 0.141
Postoperative SE -0.19 ± 0.17 -0.27 ± 0.21 0.472

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

* Independent samples t-test.

Table 4.
Postoperative changes in the length of the intraocular lens decentration (mm)
Postoperative day
1 day 1 month 2 months
OptiVis TM (mm) 0.101 ± 0.03 0.148 ± 0.59 0.053 ± 0.04
ReSTORⓇ (mm) 0.148 ± 0.34 0.152 ± 0.27 0.103 ± 0.029
p-value* 0.09 0.18 0.16

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

* Independent samples t-test.

Table 5.
Postoperative changes in the degree of the intraocular lens tilt (°)
Postoperative day
1 day 1 month 2 months
OptiVis TM (°) 1 day 1.65 ± 0.47 1 month 2.01 ± 0.93 2 months 1.20 ± 0.81
ReSTORⓇ (°) 1.77 ± 0.49 1.74 ± 0.92 1.64 ± 0.86
p-value* 0.57 0.31 0.49

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

* Independent samples t-test.

TOOLS
Similar articles