Premium
Optical performance after bilateral implantation of apodized aspheric diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses with +3.00‐D addition power
Author(s) -
Peng Cheng,
Zhao Jiangyue,
Ma Liwei,
Qu Bo,
Sun Qi,
Zhang Jinsong
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02497.x
Subject(s) - multifocal intraocular lens , apodization , ophthalmology , medicine , optics , optometry , physics , visual acuity , phacoemulsification
. Purpose: To determine whether bilateral implantation of an aspheric apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with +3.00 diopters (D) results in optical adverse effects compared with an aspheric monofocal IOL. Methods: In a prospective, randomized study of 204 eyes (102 patients) with bilateral implantation of an AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 IOL or an AcrySof IQ SN60WF IOL, binocular uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuities (CDVA), uncorrected (UIVA) and distance‐corrected intermediate visual acuities (DCIVA), uncorrected (UNVA) and distance‐corrected near visual acuities (DCNVA), defocus curve, intraocular straylight, wavefront aberrations, modulation transfer functions (MTF) and patient questionnaires were evaluated postoperatively. Results: Both groups resulted in similar UDVA and CDVA (p > 0.05), whereas the multifocal IOL group performed significantly better UIVA and DCIVA at 50, 60 cm, and better UNVA and DCNVA at 40 cm (p ≤ 0.001). Higher intraocular straylight was obtained in the multifocal IOL group (p = 0.016). Total, higher‐order, spherical and coma aberrations performed similar in both groups (p > 0.05). MTF was lower in the multifocal IOL group than in the monofocal IOL group with 3.0‐mm pupils at 5 and 10 cycles per degree (cpd). Although patients in the multifocal IOL group complained more glare/flare, problems with night vision, and halos, they reported excellent spectacle independence, and high satisfaction. Conclusions: Compared with the AcrySof IQ IOL, the ReSTOR SN6AD1 IOL provided excellent visual outcomes, satisfactory spectacle independence without compromising wavefront aberrations; however, optical adverse effects with respect to higher intraocular straylight and lower MTF at lower spatial frequency were demonstrated.