Cargando…
Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens
To compare outcomes between a new design apodized diffractive hydrophilic multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Seelens MF; study group), and a well-known apodized diffractive hydrophobic multifocal IOL (SN6AD1; control group). A comparative case series comparing refractive and visual outcomes at dista...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23381387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-013-9727-5 |
_version_ | 1782285584114384896 |
---|---|
author | van der Linden, Jan Willem van der Meulen, Ivanka J. Mourits, Maarten P. Lapid-Gortzak, Ruth |
author_facet | van der Linden, Jan Willem van der Meulen, Ivanka J. Mourits, Maarten P. Lapid-Gortzak, Ruth |
author_sort | van der Linden, Jan Willem |
collection | PubMed |
description | To compare outcomes between a new design apodized diffractive hydrophilic multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Seelens MF; study group), and a well-known apodized diffractive hydrophobic multifocal IOL (SN6AD1; control group). A comparative case series comparing refractive and visual outcomes at distance and near. Patient satisfaction with a validated questionnaire, dysphotopsia and straylight measurement scores were recorded at 3 months post-operatively. The study group comprised 48 eyes and the control group 37 eyes. At 3 months post-operatively the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was not statistically significant different between the study group and the control group (0.02 ± 0.07 logMAR [SD] vs 0.04 ± 0.09 logMAR). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was statistically significantly better with the study lens (−0.04 ± 0.05 logMAR vs −0.01 ± 0.04 logMAR (p < 0.019). There was no clinical or statistical significant difference at the 40 cm distance (0.09 ± 0.12 logMAR vs 0.08 ± 0.09 logMAR). The study group had statistically significant better uncorrected near acuity at 50 and 60 cm distances (p < 0.03 and p < 0.007, respectively). In terms of satisfaction the lenses performed equally. Halos were seen less often with the study lens. Straylight, as a parameter for visual quality, was significantly less with the study lens. Conclusion: The Seelens MF performs equally as well as the well-known SN6AD1 for UCDA and CDVA. The Seelens MF performs better at intermediate distance, and seems to allow for better depth of focus, and increased visual quality. More study is needed to corroborate the last finding. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3782640 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37826402013-09-25 Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens van der Linden, Jan Willem van der Meulen, Ivanka J. Mourits, Maarten P. Lapid-Gortzak, Ruth Int Ophthalmol Original Paper To compare outcomes between a new design apodized diffractive hydrophilic multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Seelens MF; study group), and a well-known apodized diffractive hydrophobic multifocal IOL (SN6AD1; control group). A comparative case series comparing refractive and visual outcomes at distance and near. Patient satisfaction with a validated questionnaire, dysphotopsia and straylight measurement scores were recorded at 3 months post-operatively. The study group comprised 48 eyes and the control group 37 eyes. At 3 months post-operatively the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was not statistically significant different between the study group and the control group (0.02 ± 0.07 logMAR [SD] vs 0.04 ± 0.09 logMAR). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was statistically significantly better with the study lens (−0.04 ± 0.05 logMAR vs −0.01 ± 0.04 logMAR (p < 0.019). There was no clinical or statistical significant difference at the 40 cm distance (0.09 ± 0.12 logMAR vs 0.08 ± 0.09 logMAR). The study group had statistically significant better uncorrected near acuity at 50 and 60 cm distances (p < 0.03 and p < 0.007, respectively). In terms of satisfaction the lenses performed equally. Halos were seen less often with the study lens. Straylight, as a parameter for visual quality, was significantly less with the study lens. Conclusion: The Seelens MF performs equally as well as the well-known SN6AD1 for UCDA and CDVA. The Seelens MF performs better at intermediate distance, and seems to allow for better depth of focus, and increased visual quality. More study is needed to corroborate the last finding. Springer Netherlands 2013-02-05 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3782640/ /pubmed/23381387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-013-9727-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2013 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper van der Linden, Jan Willem van der Meulen, Ivanka J. Mourits, Maarten P. Lapid-Gortzak, Ruth Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens |
title | Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens |
title_full | Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens |
title_fullStr | Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens |
title_short | Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens |
title_sort | comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23381387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-013-9727-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanderlindenjanwillem comparisonofahydrophilicandahydrophobicapodizeddiffractivemultifocalintraocularlens AT vandermeulenivankaj comparisonofahydrophilicandahydrophobicapodizeddiffractivemultifocalintraocularlens AT mouritsmaartenp comparisonofahydrophilicandahydrophobicapodizeddiffractivemultifocalintraocularlens AT lapidgortzakruth comparisonofahydrophilicandahydrophobicapodizeddiffractivemultifocalintraocularlens |