Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: To compare the visual outcomes, spectacle independent rate and stereopsis in patients who underwent bilateral implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL), or a blend approach of EDOF and bifocal IOL. METHODS: A total of 60 cataract patients, who were scheduled f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiong, Tianxu, Chen, Hao, Fan, Wei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37990306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03228-1
_version_ 1785148726449274880
author Xiong, Tianxu
Chen, Hao
Fan, Wei
author_facet Xiong, Tianxu
Chen, Hao
Fan, Wei
author_sort Xiong, Tianxu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the visual outcomes, spectacle independent rate and stereopsis in patients who underwent bilateral implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL), or a blend approach of EDOF and bifocal IOL. METHODS: A total of 60 cataract patients, who were scheduled for phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in both eyes in West China Hospital of Sichuan University, were enrolled and divided into Micro monovision group(-0.5D~-1.0D), Non-micro monovision group (< 0.5D) with Symfony IOL, and Mixed group with Symfony and ZMB00 IOLs. Three months postoperatively, we compared the visual acuity, modulation transfer function (MTF), defocus curve, stereopsis, spectacle independence, and photic phenomena among the three groups. RESULTS: Compared to the Non-micro monovision group (UNVA: 0.07 ± 0.04), Micro monovision group (UNVA: 0.00 ± 0.07, P < 0.001) and Mixed group (UNVA: -0.02 ± 0.06, P < 0.001) showed improvement in binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). Additionally, Mixed group exhibited lower MTF10 (MTF10: 0.38 ± 0.24) and point spread function (PSF: 0.192 ± 0.269) results in their non-dominant eye compared to both Micro monovision group (MTF10: 0.56 ± 0.21, P = 0.027; PSF: 0.417 ± 0.282, P = 0.034) and Non-micro monovision group (MTF10: 0.55 ± 0.19, P = 0.038; PSF: 0.408 ± 0.285, P = 0.003). Spectacle independence for near vision were higher in both the Micro monovision (45%) and Mixed (55%) group compared to the Non-micro monovision group (40%). The Mixed group also reported higher incidence of photic phenomena (25%). However, there were no significant differences in stereoscopic function among the three groups. CONCLUSION: Both micro monovision and mix-and-match methods can help patients to obtain better visual outcomes at different distances. Mix-and-match method has better near visual acuity, while micro monovision method has better intermediate visual acuity. Non-micro monovision methods will affect patients’ near vision outcomes. Binocularly implanted EDOF IOL has better contrast sensitivity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration date:11/07/2023. Trial registration number: ChiCTR2300073433. Trial registry: West China Hospital of Sichuan University retrospectively registered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10664382
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106643822023-11-21 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 Xiong, Tianxu Chen, Hao Fan, Wei BMC Ophthalmol Research BACKGROUND: To compare the visual outcomes, spectacle independent rate and stereopsis in patients who underwent bilateral implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL), or a blend approach of EDOF and bifocal IOL. METHODS: A total of 60 cataract patients, who were scheduled for phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in both eyes in West China Hospital of Sichuan University, were enrolled and divided into Micro monovision group(-0.5D~-1.0D), Non-micro monovision group (< 0.5D) with Symfony IOL, and Mixed group with Symfony and ZMB00 IOLs. Three months postoperatively, we compared the visual acuity, modulation transfer function (MTF), defocus curve, stereopsis, spectacle independence, and photic phenomena among the three groups. RESULTS: Compared to the Non-micro monovision group (UNVA: 0.07 ± 0.04), Micro monovision group (UNVA: 0.00 ± 0.07, P < 0.001) and Mixed group (UNVA: -0.02 ± 0.06, P < 0.001) showed improvement in binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). Additionally, Mixed group exhibited lower MTF10 (MTF10: 0.38 ± 0.24) and point spread function (PSF: 0.192 ± 0.269) results in their non-dominant eye compared to both Micro monovision group (MTF10: 0.56 ± 0.21, P = 0.027; PSF: 0.417 ± 0.282, P = 0.034) and Non-micro monovision group (MTF10: 0.55 ± 0.19, P = 0.038; PSF: 0.408 ± 0.285, P = 0.003). Spectacle independence for near vision were higher in both the Micro monovision (45%) and Mixed (55%) group compared to the Non-micro monovision group (40%). The Mixed group also reported higher incidence of photic phenomena (25%). However, there were no significant differences in stereoscopic function among the three groups. CONCLUSION: Both micro monovision and mix-and-match methods can help patients to obtain better visual outcomes at different distances. Mix-and-match method has better near visual acuity, while micro monovision method has better intermediate visual acuity. Non-micro monovision methods will affect patients’ near vision outcomes. Binocularly implanted EDOF IOL has better contrast sensitivity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration date:11/07/2023. Trial registration number: ChiCTR2300073433. Trial registry: West China Hospital of Sichuan University retrospectively registered. BioMed Central 2023-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10664382/ /pubmed/37990306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03228-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Xiong, Tianxu
Chen, Hao
Fan, Wei
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37990306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03228-1
work_keys_str_mv AT xiongtianxu comparisonofbilateralimplantationofanextendeddepthoffocuslensesandablendapproachofextendeddepthoffocuslensesandbifocallensesincataractpatients
AT chenhao comparisonofbilateralimplantationofanextendeddepthoffocuslensesandablendapproachofextendeddepthoffocuslensesandbifocallensesincataractpatients
AT fanwei comparisonofbilateralimplantationofanextendeddepthoffocuslensesandablendapproachofextendeddepthoffocuslensesandbifocallensesincataractpatients