Efficacy and comfort following the implantation of extended depth of focus, multifocal, and monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients.
Humans
Visual Acuity
/ physiology
Female
Male
Middle Aged
Aged
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses
Lens Implantation, Intraocular
/ methods
Depth Perception
/ physiology
Lenses, Intraocular
Patient Satisfaction
Pseudophakia
/ physiopathology
Phacoemulsification
/ methods
Prosthesis Design
Prospective Studies
Cataract
/ physiopathology
Refraction, Ocular
/ physiology
Comfortable distance near vision
Extended depth of focus
Intraocular lens
Multifocal
Visual quality
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Sep 2024
27 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
03
11
2023
accepted:
17
09
2024
medline:
28
9
2024
pubmed:
28
9
2024
entrez:
28
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Extended 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. A 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. At 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. The 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Extended 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.
METHODS
METHODS
A 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At 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.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39334046
doi: 10.1186/s12886-024-03685-2
pii: 10.1186/s12886-024-03685-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
423Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82171038
Organisme : Jiangsu Provincial Health Commission Project
ID : M2021084
Organisme : Nantong Municipal Science and Technology Project
ID : MS22022020
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sarwar H, Modi N. Sir Harold Ridley: innovator of cataract surgery. J Perioper Pract Sep. 2014;24(9):210–2.
Nijkamp MD, Dolders MG, de Brabander J, van den Borne B, Hendrikse F, Nuijts RM. Effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses to correct presbyopia after cataract surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmol Oct. 2004;111(10):1832–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.05.023
Salerno LC, Tiveron MC Jr., Alió JL. Multifocal intraocular lenses: types, outcomes, complications and how to solve them. Taiwan J Ophthalmol Oct-Dec. 2017;7(4):179–84.
doi: 10.4103/tjo.tjo_19_17
Terwee T, Weeber H, van der Mooren M, Piers P. Visualization of the retinal image in an eye model with spherical and aspheric, diffractive, and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg Mar. 2008;24(3):223–32.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20080301-03
Sudhir RR, Dey A, Bhattacharrya S, Bahulayan A. AcrySof IQ PanOptix Intraocular Lens Versus Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens and Trifocal Intraocular Lens: a clinical overview. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). Jul-Aug. 2019;8(4):335–49.
Anshel JR. Visual ergonomics in the workplace. Aaohn j Oct. 2007;55(10):414–20.
doi: 10.1177/216507990705501004
Shen J, Cai L, Zhuo B, et al. Binocular Visual Outcomes Comparison of Two Trifocal Intraocular Lenses in high-myopic cataract patients: a 1-Year Multicenter Study. Am J Ophthalmol Oct. 2023;254:1–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.03.015
Cai JQ, Wang W, Shao GD. Research of Visual Health Comfort by watching 3D LED TV. Vid Eengineering. 2014;38(24):47–9.
Pedrotti E, Carones F, Aiello F, et al. Comparative analysis of visual outcomes with 4 intraocular lenses: Monofocal, multifocal, and extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg Feb. 2018;44(2):156–67.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.11.011
Breyer DRH, Kaymak H, Ax T, Kretz FTA, Auffarth GU, Hagen PR. Multifocal Intraocular Lenses and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). Jul-Aug. 2017;6(4):339–49.
Kanclerz P, Toto F, Grzybowski A, Alio JL. Extended depth-of-field intraocular lenses: an update. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). May-Jun. 2020;9(3):194–202.
Friedrich R. Intraocular lens multifocality combined with the compensation for corneal spherical aberration: a new concept of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens. Case Rep Ophthalmol Sep. 2012;3(3):375–83.
doi: 10.1159/000343919
Singh G, Sidhharthan KS, Reddy JK, Sundaram V, Thulasidas M. Comparison of visual outcomes in patients implanted with Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 and 1-Piece ZCB00 monofocal intraocular lenses. Indian J Ophthalmol Feb. 2024;1(2):181–4.
Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Férnandez-Buenaga R, Pikkel J, Maldonado M. Multifocal intraocular lenses: an overview. Surv Ophthalmol Sep-Oct. 2017;62(5):611–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.03.005
Lian H, Ma W, Wei Q, Yuan X. A comparative study on early vision quality after implantation of refractive segmental and diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. Pak J Med Sci Nov-Dec. 2020;36(7):1607–12.
Woodward MA, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg Jun. 2009;35(6):992–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.031
Bellucci C, Mora P, Tedesco SA, Gandolfi S, Bellucci R. Automated and subjective refraction with monofocal, multifocal, and EDOF intraocular lenses: review. J Cataract Refract Surg Jun. 2023;1(6):642–8.
Tabuchi H, Tanabe H, Shirakami T, Takase K, Shojo T, Yamauchi T. Comparison of visual performance between bifocal and extended-depth-of-focus intraocular lenses. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(7):e0288602.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288602
pubmed: 37440544
pmcid: 10343039
Sevik MO, Akkaya Turhan S, Toker E. Clinical outcomes with a low add multifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lenses both implanted with mini-monovision. Eye (Lond) Jun. 2022;36(6):1168–77.
doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01600-3
Xiong T, Chen H, Fan W. Comparison of bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus lenses and a blend approach of extended depth of focus lenses and bifocal lenses in cataract patients. BMC Ophthalmol Nov. 2023;21(1):476.
doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-03228-1
Wu XW, He W. Advanced research on pseudophakic accommodation of eyes with artificial lens. Int J Ophthalmol. 2008;07:1423–5.
Masket S, Lum F, MacRae S, et al. Symptoms and Satisfaction Levels Associated with Intraocular Lens Implants in the Monofocal and Premium IOL patient-reported outcome measure study. Ophthalmol Jul. 2023;130(7):726–34.
Schmickler S, Bautista CP, Goes F, Shah S, Wolffsohn JS. Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol Dec. 2013;97(12):1560–4.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304010
Rodov L, Reitblat O, Levy A, Assia EI, Kleinmann G. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction for Trifocal, extended depth of Focus and Monofocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg Jul. 2019;1(7):434–40.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20190618-01