Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: de Silva SR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6463930 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7388867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose:To present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs). Methods:Three 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. Results:Postoperative 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). Conclusions:After 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: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: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:Purpose:To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction results after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in three groups: two receiving bilateral implantation of the same IOL and another undergoing blended vision with two different multifocal IOLs. Patients and methods:A questionnaire was administered to patients who had undergone uncomplicated cataract surgery and 2 months of follow-up: the first group underwent bilateral implantation with Alcon's AcrySof ReSTOR 3.0 lens ("3.0/3.0," n=78); the second group underwent implantation with the ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 or the ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 toric lens ("2.5 mini-monovision," n=102); and the third group underwent implantation with the ReSTOR 2.5 lens in the dominant eye and the ReSTOR 3.0 lens in the non-dominant eye ("2.5/3.0," n=89). Results:Overall PROs and satisfaction was similar among the groups. Refractive outcomes and accuracy were similar among the groups, but the 2.5 mini-monovision group reported better intermediate vision. Refractive outcome differences were not meaningful among the groups and were not a differentiating factor in PROs. Substantially fewer patients in the 2.5 mini-monovision group noticed glare and halo compared with the 3.0/3.0 group (P<0.0001, chi-square test). No new safety concerns were reported. Conclusion:The 2.5 mini-monovision results in a higher percentage of patients being satisfied with intermediate vision than bilateral ReSTOR 3.0 or blended vision with ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 implants, but overall PRO differences were not statistically significant.
| S-EPMC6938179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Visual neuroadaptation is believed to play an important role in determining the final visual outcomes following intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. To investigate visual neuroadaptation in patients with age-related cataracts (ARCs) after phacoemulsification with multifocal and monofocal IOL implantation, we conducted a prospective, controlled clinical trial in Zhongshan Ophthalmology Center. This study included 22 patients with bilateral ARCs: 11 patients underwent phacoemulsification and multifocal IOL (Mu-IOL) implantation, and 11 patients underwent phacoemulsification and monofocal IOL (Mo-IOL) implantation. Visual disturbances (glare and halos), visual function (including visual acuity, retinal straylight, contrast sensitivity, and visual evoked potentials) and visual cortical function (fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations, fALFF) in Bowman's areas 17-19 as the region of interest were assessed before and after surgeries. The results showed that the fALFF values of the visual cortex in the Mu-IOL group decreased at 1 week postoperatively and recovered to baseline at 3 months and then improved at 6 months, compared with preoperative levels (at a whole-brain threshold of P < 0.05, AlphaSim-corrected, voxels > 228, repeated measures analysis of variance). Significantly increased fALFF values in the visual cortex were detected 1 week after surgery in the Mo-IOL group and decreased to baseline at 3 and 6 months. The fALFF of the lingual gyrus was negatively correlated with visual disturbances (P < 0.05). To conclude, early postoperative visual neuroadaptation was detected in the Mu-IOL group by resting-state fMRI analysis. The different changing trends of postoperative fALFF values in the two groups indicated distinct neuroadaptations patterns after Mu-IOL and Mo-IOL implantation.
| S-EPMC8236945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo compare intermediate visual outcomes in patients previously implanted with bilateral Clareon monofocal IOLs versus bilateral Eyhance IOLs.MethodsThis was a non-interventional, single-center, examiner-masked, comparative study. Participants were cataract patients presenting at least 3 months after uncomplicated, bilateral implantation of either Clareon or Eyhance non-toric and toric IOLs. Outcomes measures included binocular distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), binocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), binocular best-corrected defocus curve, postoperative mean residual spherical equivalent (MRSE), and residual astigmatism.ResultsA total of 620 eyes of 310 subjects (155 subjects per group) were evaluated. The mean difference in DCIVA was 0.05 logMAR between the Eyhance and Clareon IOLs which was significant (p < 0.01), but within the 0.1 logMAR non-inferiority margin. Mean CDVA of the Clareon group was 0.01 ± 0.03 logMAR compared to 0.02 ± 0.03 logMAR of the Eyhance Group (p > 0.05). Defocus curves from +1.0 D to -3.0 D were not clinically nor statistically different between the Clareon and Eyhance groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe results of this study show that bilateral implantation of Clareon monofocal IOLs and Eyhance monofocal IOLs lead to similar distance and intermediate visual outcomes.
| S-EPMC10749565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo compare outcomes in patients who underwent cataract extraction with implantation of nondiffractive extended depth-of-focus (ND-EDOF; Alcon AcrySof Vivity) or neutral aspheric monofocal (Bausch & Lomb enVista) intraocular lenses (IOLs).SettingAcademic medical center.DesignProspective single-center double-arm patient- and assessor-masked randomized controlled trial.MethodsPatients were randomized to receive either a ND-EDOF or monofocal IOL in both eyes, targeted for emmetropia. Uncorrected and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), level of spectacle independence, and severity of photic phenomena were assessed at 3 months postoperatively.Results56 patients were enrolled, of which 24 in the ND-EDOF group and 27 in the monofocal group completed follow-up. The binocular mean CDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA were 20/20, 20/19, and 20/21 for the ND-EDOF IOL and 20/18 ( P = .188), 20/31 ( P < .001), and 20/30 ( P = .004) for the monofocal IOL, respectively. At intermediate, 88% of the ND-EDOF vs 30% of the monofocal patients had a binocular DCIVA of 20/25 or better ( P < .001). Moderate or severe glare occurred in 20.8% of ND-EDOF vs 7.4% of monofocal patients ( P = .228), whereas moderate or severe halos occurred in 16.7% of ND-EDOF vs 11.1% of monofocal patients ( P = .697).ConclusionsThe ND-EDOF and monofocal IOLs provided similarly excellent distance vision. Patients implanted with the ND-EDOF IOL had 2 more lines of vision at both intermediate and near, and a greater proportion reported spectacle independence. Most patients in both groups reported low severity of photic phenomena.
| S-EPMC10050137 | biostudies-literature