Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: de Silva SR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6463930 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.
de Silva Samantha R SR Evans Jennifer R JR Kirthi Varo V Ziaei Mohammed M Leyland Martin M
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20161212
<h4>Background</h4>Good unaided distance visual acuity (VA) is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7388867 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9881452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs).MethodsThree hundred twenty eyes (160 patients) underwent cataract surgery with randomized IOLs bilateral implantation. Changes in uncorrected and distance-corrected logMAR distance, intermediate and near (UNVA and DCNVA) visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), presence of dysphotopsia, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction were analyzed.ResultsPostoperative VA in the hybrid (OptiVis) group was improved in all distances (p < 0.001). OptiVis acted superiorly to monofocal IOLs in UNVA and DCNVA (p < 0.001 for both) and to refractive ones in DCNVA (p < 0.005). Distance, mesopic, without glare CS in OptiVis was lower than in the monofocal group and similar to other MFIOLs. No differences in dysphotopsia pre- and postoperatively and spectacle independence in near for OptiVis and refractive MFIOLs were detected. OptiVis patients were more satisfied than those with monofocal IOLs (p=0.015).ConclusionsAfter cataract surgery, patients with OptiVis improved VA in all distances. Near and intermediate VA was better than monofocal, and DCNVA was better than the refractive group. CS was lower in OptiVis than in the monofocal group, but there was no difference between MFIOLs. Patient satisfaction was higher in OptiVis than in the monofocal group. This trial is registered with NCT03512626.
| S-EPMC6036790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExtended depth of focus (EDOF) and multifocal (Multi) intraocular lenses (IOL) can provide a fixed distance of near vision, which may result in some discomfort for patients who prefer different near distances. The aim of this study was to compare the vision, comfortable near distance (CND) and visual comfort in patients who underwent implantation of EDOF, Multi, and monofocal (Mono) IOLs.MethodsA total of 100 eyes were implanted with Tecnis ZXR00, ZMB00 or ZCB00 IOLs. Uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA, respectively), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), the fluctuations of CND, the ability to see at comfortable or standard near distance and visual comfort were evaluated at 3-month postoperative.ResultsAt 3 months postoperative, the EDOF and Multi groups showed non-inferiority compared to the Mono group in the UDVA (P > 0.05) and CDVA (P > 0.05) but superiority in the UNVA (P < 0.001). The UIVA was better in the EDOF group, with comparable results for the Multi and Mono groups. There was no difference in preoperative and postoperative CND in the three groups. The CND visual acuity (CNDVA) was lower than the UNVA in the three groups, especially in the EDOF and Multi groups (P < 0.05). The CND effectively improved patients' near visual comfort and visual clarity, except for one patient in the Multi group who complained of severe fatigue and was unable to tolerate the experience at month 3.ConclusionThe EDOF and Multi IOLs achieved excellent visual quality and superior UNVA compared to the Mono IOL, but the CNDVA was significantly inferior to the UNVA. Patients' near visual experience can be effectively improved at their CND.
| S-EPMC11438220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether accommodative intraocular lenses (AC-IOLs) are superior for cataract patients compared with monofocal IOLs (MF-IOLs).MethodsPubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched through in August 2018 for AC-IOLs versus MF-IOLs in cataract patients. Studies were pooled under either fixed-effects model or random-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), or standard mean difference (SMD) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) was chosen as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), pilocarpine-induced IOL shift, contrast sensitivity, and spectacle independence.ResultsSeventeen studies, involving a total of 1764 eyes, were included. Our results revealed that AC-IOLs improved DCNVA (SMD = -1.84, 95% CI = -2.56 to -1.11) and were associated with significantly greater anterior lens shift than MF-IOLs (WMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.23). Furthermore, spectacle independence was significantly better with AC-IOLs than with MF-IOLs (RR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.06-8.89). However, there was no significant difference in CDVA and contrast sensitivity between the 2 groups.ConclusionOur study confirmed that AC-IOLs can provide cataract patients with DCNVA and result in more high levels of spectacle independence than MF-IOLs. Further studies with larger data set and well-designed models are required to validate our findings.
| S-EPMC6200466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo use the revised model eye to observe and compare how the world is perceived by patients with monofocal intraocular lens (IOL), Eyhance, bifocal IOL, and Symfony, and check its performance.MethodsThe new mobile model eye consists of an artificial cornea, an IOL, a wet cell, an adjustable lens tube, a lens tube, an objective lens, a tube lens, and a digital single-lens reflex camera. We collected photographs of distant buildings and streets at night, videos of the focusing process, and videos of United States Air Force resolution target from 6 m to 15 cm and analyzed them quantitatively.ResultsIn this revised model eye using an objective lens, an artificial cornea similar to the human cornea could be used. Using a digital single-lens reflex camera, high-resolution imaging was possible without an additional computer. Fine focusing was possible using an adjustable lens tube. For monofocal IOL, the contrast modulation was 0.39 at 6 m and decreased consistently. It was nearly 0 as the model eye got closer than 1.6 m. For Eyhance, the contrast modulation was 0.40 at 6 m. It then decreased and increased again. At 1.3 m, it was 0.07 and then decreased again. For Symfony, the contrast modulation was 0.18 at 6 m. Symfony showed the characteristics of a bifocal IOL with low add diopter. Halos (234 pixels) were observed around lights, although smaller than those seen with bifocal IOL (432 pixels).ConclusionsWe could objectively observe and compare how patients with monofocal IOL, Eyhance, bifocal IOL, and Symfony perceived the world using this revised model eye.Translational relevanceData obtained by this new mobile model eye can be used to help patients select their IOLs before cataract surgeries.
| S-EPMC10327964 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the visual performance of a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (ZCB00) and a multifocal IOL (ZMB00) of the same material and basic design, we evaluated postoperative parameters at 10 weeks after the last surgery in cataract patients who underwent bilateral ZCB00 or ZMB00 implantation from December 13, 2010, to July 29, 2019, with the right and left lenses implanted within 3 months of each other. The study enrolled 2,230 eyes of 1,115 patients. The monofocal group comprised 904 eyes of 452 patients (72.3 ± 6.8 years; females/males, 268/184), and the multifocal group comprised 1,326 eyes of 663 patients (67.0 ± 7.8 years; females/males, 518/145). Contrast sensitivity (4.0/2.5/1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees), contrast sensitivity with glare (1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees), and the VFQ-25 score for driving at night were significantly better in the monofocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). Uncorrected intermediate/near visual acuity and near spectacle independence were significantly better in the multifocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). The two IOL groups had different characteristics in terms of contrast sensitivity, night-time driving, uncorrected intermediate/near visual acuity and near spectacle independence.
| S-EPMC7511318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMultifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) are often discouraged in patients with or at risk of retinal disorders (including diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, and epiretinal membranes), as MIOLs are believed to reduce contrast sensitivity (CS). Concerns with MIOLs have also been raised in individuals with visual field defects, fixation instability or eccentric preferred retinal locations. The aim of this study is to review the influence of MIOL on quality of vision in patients with retinal diseases.MethodsWe reviewed the PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies using the following keywords: multifocal intraocular lens, cataract surgery, cataract extraction, lens exchange, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, and contrast sensitivity.ResultsStudies evaluating CS in MIOLs present conflicting results: MIOLs either did not influence CS or resulted in worse performance under low-illuminance conditions and higher spatial frequencies when compared to monofocal IOLs. Nevertheless, MIOLs preserved CS levels within the age-matched normal range. Two studies reported that patients with concurrent retinal diseases receiving a MIOL, both unilaterally and bilaterally, reported a significant improvement in visual-related outcomes. Individuals with a monofocal IOL in one eye and a MIOL in the fellow eye reported greater subjective satisfaction with the MIOL.ConclusionWe were unable to find evidence suggesting that patients with retinal diseases should be advised against MIOLs. Nevertheless, more research is needed to address the aforementioned concerns and to optimize the use of MIOLs in eyes with retinal disease.
| S-EPMC7575463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNew intraocular lenses (IOLs) have emerged since the originally coined monofocal and multifocal IOLs. The extended depth of focus (EDoF) and enhanced monofocal IOLs (mono-EDoF) that have appeared in the last decade have caused some confusion in their classification. The aim of this review was to summarize the outcomes provided by mono-EDOF IOLs and to determine which of the endpoints, described by the American National Standard (ANSI) for EDoF IOLs, are fulfilled.MethodsThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and data extraction. The search strategy was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, but not by language. The results are presented as a narrative summary accompanied by tables, in alignment with the objectives of this scoping review. Compliance with the endpoints for clinical outcomes described in the American National Standard Z80.35-2018 (ANSI) for EDoF lenses was checked and additional endpoints were defined.ResultsTwo systematic reviews, 13 laboratory, 21 clinical, and two mixed studies were included. Tecnis Eyhance was the mono-EDOF with the highest volume of evidence to date. Although laboratory studies included other IOLs, clinical evidence for them is still scarce, with only one study of IsoPure compared to a standard monofocal IOL. Evidence in comparison to EDoF lenses is also scarce, even for Tecnis Eyhance, with only three studies including this lens in comparison to an EDoF lens. After evaluation of the ANSI criteria, agreement was found in the failure for the increase in depth of field equal to or greater than 0.5 D for a visual acuity (VA) level of 0.2 logMAR and none of the studies supported that the median monocular VA at intermediate distance was at least 0.2 logMAR.ConclusionsAdditional clinical evidence is required for other mono-EDOF IOLs beyond Tecnis Eyhance. Until the arrival of a standard classification, mono-EDOF should be better still classified as monofocal because the ANSI standards were not fully met.
| S-EPMC10015679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceA bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.Data sourcesMedline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.Study selectionBased on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisDescriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.ResultsThis NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.46 to -0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, -0.33 [95% CrI, -0.50 to -0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.Conclusions and relevanceFor patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.
| S-EPMC9501783 | biostudies-literature