Evaluation of Visual Outcomes in Patients Implanted with Acri.LISA 356D Multifocal Intraocular Lens

Purpose: To assess the visual results after implantation of the bifocal Acri.LISA 356D intraocular lens (IOL).\udMaterial and Method: Thirty-three eyes of 26 patients who had undergone cataract extraction by phacoemulsification technique\udwere implanted with Acri.LISA 356 D IOL. All eyes were tested both at far and near distance at mesopic and photopic room\udlight levels (5 and 85 cd/m2), in the following 1st and 3rd months after the operation. All eyes were tested for far, intermediate\udand near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, refractive errors, glare and visual complaints, and need for spectacles.\udResults: The mean age of the patients was 58.2±9.3 years. Out of the 26 patients who participated in the study, nineteen (8\udfemale, 11 male) had unilateral and 7 patients (5 female, 2 male) had bilateral implantation. At 3-month postoperative visit, the\udmean best-corrected distance visual acuity was 0.94±0.08, the best distance-corrected near visual acuity was 0.77±0.12 and\udthe best distance-corrected intermediate (70cm.) visual acuity was 0.67±0.10. Distance visual acuity was significantly better than\udintermediate and near visual acuities, while near visual acuity was statistically significantly better than intermediate visual acuity\ud(p<0.05 for each). Postoperative mean spherical equivalent was -0.85±0.55 D. At 1 month, contrast sensitivity was low, especially\udat near under both illumination levels and, at 3 months, low contrast sensitivity level persisted at near under mesopic conditions\udonly at high spatial frequencies. The incidence of halos was higher in patients with higher astigmatism. Although it\udseemed that 74% of patients needed eyeglasses for far, the rate of using eyeglasses was only 15%.\udDiscussion: The Acri.LISA 356D, which is a bifocal hybrid IOL, provided satisfaction for far/near visual acuity and contrast\udsensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions. However, it is not successful at the same degree for intermediate\uddistances. (Turk J Ophthalmol 2011; 41: 236-42