Prospective comparative study of tolerance to refractive errors after implantation of extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses with identical aspheric platform in Korean population.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Depth Perception
/ physiology
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Incidence
Lenses, Intraocular
Male
Middle Aged
Optics and Photonics
Patient Satisfaction
Phacoemulsification
Postoperative Period
Prospective Studies
Refraction, Ocular
/ physiology
Refractive Errors
/ epidemiology
Republic of Korea
/ epidemiology
Visual Acuity
Extended depth of focus IOL
Symfony
Visual acuity tolerance to postoperative refractive errors
ZXR00
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Aug 2019
19 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
14
11
2018
accepted:
02
08
2019
entrez:
21
8
2019
pubmed:
21
8
2019
medline:
29
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the clinical outcomes of extended depth of focus (EDOF) and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) that share identical aspheric platform and compare their visual acuity tolerance to postoperative refractive errors. This non-randomized, prospective comparative study included 120 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of either Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 60 eyes of 30 patients) or Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (EDOF group: 60 eyes of 30 patients). Monocular and binocular visual outcomes, changes in refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and perception of photic phenomena (Halo & Glare Simulator; Eyeland Design Network, Vreden, Germany) were evaluated 3 months postoperatively. To compare the refractive tolerance, each group was divided into three subgroups according to the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and postoperative spherical equivalent (SE). In the EDOF group, the mean 3-months postoperative monocular UDVA, intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were 0.03 ± 0.07, 0.09 ± 0.15, and 0.24 ± 0.16 logMAR, respectively. A total of 100, 96.55, and 68.97% of eyes in the EDOF group achieved binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA values of 0.20 logMAR or better, respectively. In respect to refractive tolerance, the EDOF group showed higher SE values and statistically significantly better mean UDVA than the monofocal group in all subgroups, with UDVA of - 0.013 and 0.028 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.037), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within ±0.50 D, UDVA of 0.004 and 0.048 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.046), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within - 1.00 D, and UDVA of 0.020 and 0.083 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.026), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was more than - 1.00 D. The mean patient satisfaction scores for spectacle-free distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities were 86.0, 85.0, and 66.0, respectively. The EDOF IOL provided excellent postoperative visual outcomes in far and intermediate distances, with high patient satisfaction rate. Regarding the postoperative refractive tolerance to SE, the Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better tolerance to residual postoperative refractive error than the monofocal IOL with the same material and optical platform.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the clinical outcomes of extended depth of focus (EDOF) and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) that share identical aspheric platform and compare their visual acuity tolerance to postoperative refractive errors.
METHODS
METHODS
This non-randomized, prospective comparative study included 120 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of either Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 60 eyes of 30 patients) or Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (EDOF group: 60 eyes of 30 patients). Monocular and binocular visual outcomes, changes in refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and perception of photic phenomena (Halo & Glare Simulator; Eyeland Design Network, Vreden, Germany) were evaluated 3 months postoperatively. To compare the refractive tolerance, each group was divided into three subgroups according to the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and postoperative spherical equivalent (SE).
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the EDOF group, the mean 3-months postoperative monocular UDVA, intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were 0.03 ± 0.07, 0.09 ± 0.15, and 0.24 ± 0.16 logMAR, respectively. A total of 100, 96.55, and 68.97% of eyes in the EDOF group achieved binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA values of 0.20 logMAR or better, respectively. In respect to refractive tolerance, the EDOF group showed higher SE values and statistically significantly better mean UDVA than the monofocal group in all subgroups, with UDVA of - 0.013 and 0.028 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.037), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within ±0.50 D, UDVA of 0.004 and 0.048 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.046), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within - 1.00 D, and UDVA of 0.020 and 0.083 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.026), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was more than - 1.00 D. The mean patient satisfaction scores for spectacle-free distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities were 86.0, 85.0, and 66.0, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The EDOF IOL provided excellent postoperative visual outcomes in far and intermediate distances, with high patient satisfaction rate. Regarding the postoperative refractive tolerance to SE, the Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better tolerance to residual postoperative refractive error than the monofocal IOL with the same material and optical platform.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31426775
doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1193-z
pii: 10.1186/s12886-019-1193-z
pmc: PMC6700984
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
187Références
Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Jun;119(6):881-7
pubmed: 11405840
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006 Sep;32(9):1459-63
pubmed: 16931256
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Feb;33(2):210-6
pubmed: 17276260
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Jul;33(7):1296-302
pubmed: 17586390
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008 Jan;19(1):18-21
pubmed: 18090892
Ophthalmology. 2008 Sep;115(9):1508-16
pubmed: 18538402
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Apr;35(4):672-6
pubmed: 19304087
Opt Express. 2010 Jan 18;18(2):1637-48
pubmed: 20173991
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 May;36(5):733-9
pubmed: 20457363
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Jan;37(1):27-37
pubmed: 21183097
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Feb;37(2):241-50
pubmed: 21241905
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 May;37(5):859-65
pubmed: 21397457
J Refract Surg. 2012 Feb;28(2):93-9
pubmed: 22185467
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;(9):CD003169
pubmed: 22972061
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Mar;39(3):343-9
pubmed: 23332118
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jan;121(1):34-44
pubmed: 23953097
Br J Ophthalmol. 2013 Dec;97(12):1560-4
pubmed: 24123903
Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:1957-65
pubmed: 24124348
J Refract Surg. 2013 Nov;29(11):756-61
pubmed: 24203807
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Jan;40(1):60-9
pubmed: 24355721
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2014 Jul-Aug;24(4):501-8
pubmed: 24366771
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014 Mar;252(3):539-44
pubmed: 24435632
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014 Jul;34(4):397-426
pubmed: 24716827
Clin Ophthalmol. 2014 May 14;8:919-26
pubmed: 24868143
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2014 Oct;89(10):397-404
pubmed: 24951327
Med Sci Monit. 2014 Jul 15;20:1220-6
pubmed: 25022700
J Refract Surg. 2014 Oct;30(10):666-72
pubmed: 25291749
J Refract Surg. 2014 Nov;30(11):762-8
pubmed: 25375849
BMC Ophthalmol. 2015 Mar 14;15:26
pubmed: 25884715
Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Dec;99(12):1655-9
pubmed: 25987651
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Aug;41(8):1631-40
pubmed: 26432120
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Jan;161:71-7.e1
pubmed: 26432565
J Refract Surg. 2015 Oct;31(10):666-76
pubmed: 26469074
Eye Vis (Lond). 2014 Oct 16;1:2
pubmed: 26605349
Clin Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar 01;10:365-71
pubmed: 27041983
J Refract Surg. 2016 Jul 1;32(7):436-42
pubmed: 27400074
J Refract Surg. 2016 Jul 1;32(7):444-50
pubmed: 27400075
Cornea. 2016 Nov;35(11):1404-1409
pubmed: 27617868
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Sep;42(9):1268-1275
pubmed: 27697244
Clin Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct 11;10:1965-1970
pubmed: 27784985
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017 Jun 26;27(4):460-465
pubmed: 28165609
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Jun;43(6):737-747
pubmed: 28732606
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Jun;43(6):761-766
pubmed: 28732609
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018 Mar;28(2):182-187
pubmed: 28885672
Clin Ophthalmol. 2017 Oct 26;11:1911-1916
pubmed: 29138533
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018 Feb;44(2):149-155
pubmed: 29526338
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018 Nov;46(8):854-860
pubmed: 29726108
Clin Ophthalmol. 2018 Jul 18;12:1269-1278
pubmed: 30050279
J Refract Surg. 2018 Aug 1;34(8):507-514
pubmed: 30089179
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994 Aug;35(9):3357-61
pubmed: 8056510