Cargando…

Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE: To present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs). METHODS: Three hundred twenty eyes (160 patients) underwent cataract surgery with randomized IOLs bilateral implantation. Changes in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dyrda, Agnieszka, Martínez-Palmer, Ana, Martín-Moral, Daniel, Rey, Amanda, Morilla, Antonio, Castilla-Martí, Miguel, Aronés-Santivañez, Janny
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30046464
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8285637
_version_ 1783338223655714816
author Dyrda, Agnieszka
Martínez-Palmer, Ana
Martín-Moral, Daniel
Rey, Amanda
Morilla, Antonio
Castilla-Martí, Miguel
Aronés-Santivañez, Janny
author_facet Dyrda, Agnieszka
Martínez-Palmer, Ana
Martín-Moral, Daniel
Rey, Amanda
Morilla, Antonio
Castilla-Martí, Miguel
Aronés-Santivañez, Janny
author_sort Dyrda, Agnieszka
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs). METHODS: Three hundred twenty eyes (160 patients) underwent cataract surgery with randomized IOLs bilateral implantation. Changes in uncorrected and distance-corrected logMAR distance, intermediate and near (UNVA and DCNVA) visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), presence of dysphotopsia, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction were analyzed. RESULTS: Postoperative VA in the hybrid (OptiVis) group was improved in all distances (p < 0.001). OptiVis acted superiorly to monofocal IOLs in UNVA and DCNVA (p < 0.001 for both) and to refractive ones in DCNVA (p < 0.005). Distance, mesopic, without glare CS in OptiVis was lower than in the monofocal group and similar to other MFIOLs. No differences in dysphotopsia pre- and postoperatively and spectacle independence in near for OptiVis and refractive MFIOLs were detected. OptiVis patients were more satisfied than those with monofocal IOLs (p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: After cataract surgery, patients with OptiVis improved VA in all distances. Near and intermediate VA was better than monofocal, and DCNVA was better than the refractive group. CS was lower in OptiVis than in the monofocal group, but there was no difference between MFIOLs. Patient satisfaction was higher in OptiVis than in the monofocal group. This trial is registered with NCT03512626.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6036790
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60367902018-07-25 Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses Dyrda, Agnieszka Martínez-Palmer, Ana Martín-Moral, Daniel Rey, Amanda Morilla, Antonio Castilla-Martí, Miguel Aronés-Santivañez, Janny J Ophthalmol Research Article PURPOSE: To present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs). METHODS: Three hundred twenty eyes (160 patients) underwent cataract surgery with randomized IOLs bilateral implantation. Changes in uncorrected and distance-corrected logMAR distance, intermediate and near (UNVA and DCNVA) visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), presence of dysphotopsia, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction were analyzed. RESULTS: Postoperative VA in the hybrid (OptiVis) group was improved in all distances (p < 0.001). OptiVis acted superiorly to monofocal IOLs in UNVA and DCNVA (p < 0.001 for both) and to refractive ones in DCNVA (p < 0.005). Distance, mesopic, without glare CS in OptiVis was lower than in the monofocal group and similar to other MFIOLs. No differences in dysphotopsia pre- and postoperatively and spectacle independence in near for OptiVis and refractive MFIOLs were detected. OptiVis patients were more satisfied than those with monofocal IOLs (p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: After cataract surgery, patients with OptiVis improved VA in all distances. Near and intermediate VA was better than monofocal, and DCNVA was better than the refractive group. CS was lower in OptiVis than in the monofocal group, but there was no difference between MFIOLs. Patient satisfaction was higher in OptiVis than in the monofocal group. This trial is registered with NCT03512626. Hindawi 2018-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6036790/ /pubmed/30046464 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8285637 Text en Copyright © 2018 Agnieszka Dyrda et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Dyrda, Agnieszka
Martínez-Palmer, Ana
Martín-Moral, Daniel
Rey, Amanda
Morilla, Antonio
Castilla-Martí, Miguel
Aronés-Santivañez, Janny
Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses
title Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses
title_full Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses
title_fullStr Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses
title_short Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses
title_sort clinical results of diffractive, refractive, hybrid multifocal, and monofocal intraocular lenses
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30046464
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8285637
work_keys_str_mv AT dyrdaagnieszka clinicalresultsofdiffractiverefractivehybridmultifocalandmonofocalintraocularlenses
AT martinezpalmerana clinicalresultsofdiffractiverefractivehybridmultifocalandmonofocalintraocularlenses
AT martinmoraldaniel clinicalresultsofdiffractiverefractivehybridmultifocalandmonofocalintraocularlenses
AT reyamanda clinicalresultsofdiffractiverefractivehybridmultifocalandmonofocalintraocularlenses
AT morillaantonio clinicalresultsofdiffractiverefractivehybridmultifocalandmonofocalintraocularlenses
AT castillamartimiguel clinicalresultsofdiffractiverefractivehybridmultifocalandmonofocalintraocularlenses
AT aronessantivanezjanny clinicalresultsofdiffractiverefractivehybridmultifocalandmonofocalintraocularlenses