Dataset Information

Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs. Methods:A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up to February 2017 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies. Main outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), MTF, Strehl ratio, and residual sphere and cylinder. Results:Mplus provided significantly worse UDVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.13, P=0.008), but significantly better UIVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: -0.19, P < 0.00001), spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: -0.12, P < 0.0001), and accommodating IOLs (WMD: -0.21, P < 0.00001). Mplus provided significantly worse UNVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.07, P < 0.00001), but significantly better UNVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: -0.19, P < 0.00001). Mplus resulted in significantly higher HOAs than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.38, P < 0.00001) and spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.51, P=0.0004). Mplus provided a significantly lower MTF cut-off and Strehl ratio than other type of IOLs. Conclusion:The Mplus IOLs perform best regarding intermediate visual acuity whereas they lack in distance visual acuity compared to monofocal IOLs and near visual acuity compared to bifocal IOLs. These results may be due to structure of Mplus IOLs resulting in higher-order aberrations.

SUBMITTER: Xu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6181000 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis.

Xu Zequan Z Li Wenzhe W Wu Lianqun L Xue Shuang S Chen Xu X Wu Qiang Q

Journal of ophthalmology 20180927

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs.<h4>Methods</h4>A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up to February 2017 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies. Main outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected int ...[more]

PMID: 30363767

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the visual performance of MF30 asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) with ZMB00 all optic zone diffractive MIOLs.MethodsThis is a prospective study. Patients that underwent phacoemulsification were divided into two groups according to the type of MIOLs used: 35 patients were implanted with asymmetric refractive MIOLs and 35 patients with all optic zone diffractive MIOLs. Visual acuity (VA), refraction, defocus curves, objective optical quality, and a questionnaire evaluating quality of life were measured at 3 months postoperatively.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), or distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA). However, the uncorrected intermediate VA was 0.24±0.10 in the refractive group and 0.31±0.13 in the diffractive group (P<0.05), and the distance-corrected intermediate VA was 0.22±0.09 in the refractive group and 0.31±0.14 in the diffractive group (P<0.05). Defocus curves showed two peaks of maximum vision in both groups. However, the curve between the two peaks in the refractive group was smoother than that of the diffractive group. The modulated transfer function cut-off frequency was 22.74±12.29 c/d in the refractive group and 30.50±10.04 c/d in the diffractive group (P<0.05). The Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS) values 100% (OV100%) was 0.75±0.41 in the refractive group and 1.02±0.34 in the diffractive group (P<0.05), while the OV20% was 0.52±0.34 in the refractive group and 0.71±0.25 in the diffractive group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in overall satisfaction, spectacle independence ratio, or visual interference phenomenon.ConclusionsBoth MIOLs achieve good VA at distance and near vision. Oculentis MF30 showed better intermediate VA, and Tecnis ZMB00 appears to have better objective visual quality.Trial registrationNCT02234635 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Project description:PurposeTo compare the clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses in bilateral cataract and/or refractive lens exchange (RLE) surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Web of Science was performed through October 2016 to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies. The primary outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), defocus curve, spectacle independence, patient satisfaction and contrast sensitivity. The secondary outcomes were residual sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), cylinder and complications.ResultsSix RCTs and 2 cohort studies including 568 eyes (278 in the trifocal group and 290 in the bifocal group) were identified. There was a statically significant difference between the two groups in UDVA (WMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.05 to -0.01, P = 0.005), but the difference (0.03 log MAR) is not clinically significant. Intermediate visual acuity was better in the trifocal IOL group judging from UIVA and defocus curves. There was a statically significant difference between the two groups in residual cylinder (WMD: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.20, P = 0.02), and subgroup AT Lisa tri 839MP trifocal also showed significant better UNVA than bifocal IOLs (WMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.17 to -0.08, P<0.00001). However, no significant differences were observed in UNVA (WMD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.02, P = 0.19), spectacle independence (WMD: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.89 to 18.15, P = 0.07), patient satisfaction (WMD: 4.01, 95% CI: 0.07 to 22.72, P = 0.87), residual sphere (WMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.13, P = 0.74), SE (WMD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.16, P = 0.55) or complications (WMD: 2.08, 95% CI: 0.35 to 12.43, P = 0.42).ConclusionsTrifocal IOL technology (especially AT Lisa trifocal 839M trifocal) had a clear advantage over bifocal IOLs in intermediate visual acuity, while both trifocal IOLs and bifocal IOLs showed excellent performance in distance visual acuity. AT Lisa trifocal 839M trifocal could provide better uncorrected near visual acuity than bifocal IOLs. However, more evidence is needed to compare their spectacle independence, higher satisfaction rate, and photic phenomena.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets