Cargando…

Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of different multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) based on information reported in the international literature. METHODS: All comparative clinical trials that involved implanting at least one multifocal IOL in patients with cataract or presbyopia were extract...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cochener, Béatrice, Lafuma, Antoine, Khoshnood, Babak, Courouve, Laurène, Berdeaux, Gilles
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311656
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S14325
_version_ 1782197526920691712
author Cochener, Béatrice
Lafuma, Antoine
Khoshnood, Babak
Courouve, Laurène
Berdeaux, Gilles
author_facet Cochener, Béatrice
Lafuma, Antoine
Khoshnood, Babak
Courouve, Laurène
Berdeaux, Gilles
author_sort Cochener, Béatrice
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of different multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) based on information reported in the international literature. METHODS: All comparative clinical trials that involved implanting at least one multifocal IOL in patients with cataract or presbyopia were extracted from the literature. Clinical outcomes included uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, visual acuity, spectacle independence, and halos. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare outcomes for the different IOL types. RESULTS: Twenty papers were identified describing 11 monofocal IOLs and 35 multifocal IOLs (19 diffractive, including 12 ReSTOR(®), 14 refractive, and two accommodative) patient cohorts. Multifocal and monofocal uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.165 (0.090–0.240) and 0.093 (0.088–0.098), respectively. Compared with monofocal IOLs, multifocal IOLs produced better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.470 [0.322–0.618] versus 0.141 [0.131–0.152]; P < 0.0001), resulting in higher spectacle independence (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 3.62 [2.90–4.52]; P < 0.0001). Compared with refractive multifocal IOLs, diffractive multifocal IOLs produced a similar uncorrected distance visual acuity (0.105 [0.098–0.111] versus 0.085 [0.029–0.140]; P ≤ 0.78, not significant) and better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.217 [0.118–0.317] versus 0.082 [0.067–0.098]; P < 0.0001) resulting in higher spectacle independence (IRR 1.75 [1.24–2.48]; P < 0.001). Compared with other multifocal IOLs, ReSTOR produced a better uncorrected distance visual acuity (0.067 [0.059–0.076] versus 0.093 [0.088–0.098]; P < 0.0001) and better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.064 [0.046–0.082] versus 0.141 [0.131–0.152]; P < 0.006), resulting in higher spectacle independence (IRR 2.06 [1.26–1.36]; P < 0.004). Halo incidence rates with different types of multifocal implants did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Multifocal IOLs provide better uncorrected near visual acuity than monofocal IOLs, leading to less need for spectacles. Multifocal IOL design might play a role in postsurgical outcome, because better results were obtained with diffractive lenses. ReSTOR showed better uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, and higher spectacle independence rates compared with other multifocal IOLs.
format Text
id pubmed-3033003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30330032011-02-10 Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis Cochener, Béatrice Lafuma, Antoine Khoshnood, Babak Courouve, Laurène Berdeaux, Gilles Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of different multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) based on information reported in the international literature. METHODS: All comparative clinical trials that involved implanting at least one multifocal IOL in patients with cataract or presbyopia were extracted from the literature. Clinical outcomes included uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, visual acuity, spectacle independence, and halos. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare outcomes for the different IOL types. RESULTS: Twenty papers were identified describing 11 monofocal IOLs and 35 multifocal IOLs (19 diffractive, including 12 ReSTOR(®), 14 refractive, and two accommodative) patient cohorts. Multifocal and monofocal uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.165 (0.090–0.240) and 0.093 (0.088–0.098), respectively. Compared with monofocal IOLs, multifocal IOLs produced better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.470 [0.322–0.618] versus 0.141 [0.131–0.152]; P < 0.0001), resulting in higher spectacle independence (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 3.62 [2.90–4.52]; P < 0.0001). Compared with refractive multifocal IOLs, diffractive multifocal IOLs produced a similar uncorrected distance visual acuity (0.105 [0.098–0.111] versus 0.085 [0.029–0.140]; P ≤ 0.78, not significant) and better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.217 [0.118–0.317] versus 0.082 [0.067–0.098]; P < 0.0001) resulting in higher spectacle independence (IRR 1.75 [1.24–2.48]; P < 0.001). Compared with other multifocal IOLs, ReSTOR produced a better uncorrected distance visual acuity (0.067 [0.059–0.076] versus 0.093 [0.088–0.098]; P < 0.0001) and better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.064 [0.046–0.082] versus 0.141 [0.131–0.152]; P < 0.006), resulting in higher spectacle independence (IRR 2.06 [1.26–1.36]; P < 0.004). Halo incidence rates with different types of multifocal implants did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Multifocal IOLs provide better uncorrected near visual acuity than monofocal IOLs, leading to less need for spectacles. Multifocal IOL design might play a role in postsurgical outcome, because better results were obtained with diffractive lenses. ReSTOR showed better uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, and higher spectacle independence rates compared with other multifocal IOLs. Dove Medical Press 2011 2011-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC3033003/ /pubmed/21311656 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S14325 Text en © 2011 Cochener et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd. This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Cochener, Béatrice
Lafuma, Antoine
Khoshnood, Babak
Courouve, Laurène
Berdeaux, Gilles
Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis
title Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311656
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S14325
work_keys_str_mv AT cochenerbeatrice comparisonofoutcomeswithmultifocalintraocularlensesametaanalysis
AT lafumaantoine comparisonofoutcomeswithmultifocalintraocularlensesametaanalysis
AT khoshnoodbabak comparisonofoutcomeswithmultifocalintraocularlensesametaanalysis
AT courouvelaurene comparisonofoutcomeswithmultifocalintraocularlensesametaanalysis
AT berdeauxgilles comparisonofoutcomeswithmultifocalintraocularlensesametaanalysis