Cargando…

Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Zequan, Li, Wenzhe, Wu, Lianqun, Xue, Shuang, Chen, Xu, Wu, Qiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181000/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30363767
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4728258
_version_ 1783362329737428992
author Xu, Zequan
Li, Wenzhe
Wu, Lianqun
Xue, Shuang
Chen, Xu
Wu, Qiang
author_facet Xu, Zequan
Li, Wenzhe
Wu, Lianqun
Xue, Shuang
Chen, Xu
Wu, Qiang
author_sort Xu, Zequan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up to February 2017 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies. Main outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), MTF, Strehl ratio, and residual sphere and cylinder. RESULTS: Mplus provided significantly worse UDVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.13, P=0.008), but significantly better UIVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P < 0.00001), spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.12, P < 0.0001), and accommodating IOLs (WMD: −0.21, P < 0.00001). Mplus provided significantly worse UNVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.07, P < 0.00001), but significantly better UNVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P < 0.00001). Mplus resulted in significantly higher HOAs than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.38, P < 0.00001) and spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.51, P=0.0004). Mplus provided a significantly lower MTF cut-off and Strehl ratio than other type of IOLs. CONCLUSION: The Mplus IOLs perform best regarding intermediate visual acuity whereas they lack in distance visual acuity compared to monofocal IOLs and near visual acuity compared to bifocal IOLs. These results may be due to structure of Mplus IOLs resulting in higher-order aberrations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6181000
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61810002018-10-24 Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis Xu, Zequan Li, Wenzhe Wu, Lianqun Xue, Shuang Chen, Xu Wu, Qiang J Ophthalmol Review Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up to February 2017 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies. Main outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), MTF, Strehl ratio, and residual sphere and cylinder. RESULTS: Mplus provided significantly worse UDVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.13, P=0.008), but significantly better UIVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P < 0.00001), spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.12, P < 0.0001), and accommodating IOLs (WMD: −0.21, P < 0.00001). Mplus provided significantly worse UNVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.07, P < 0.00001), but significantly better UNVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P < 0.00001). Mplus resulted in significantly higher HOAs than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.38, P < 0.00001) and spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.51, P=0.0004). Mplus provided a significantly lower MTF cut-off and Strehl ratio than other type of IOLs. CONCLUSION: The Mplus IOLs perform best regarding intermediate visual acuity whereas they lack in distance visual acuity compared to monofocal IOLs and near visual acuity compared to bifocal IOLs. These results may be due to structure of Mplus IOLs resulting in higher-order aberrations. Hindawi 2018-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6181000/ /pubmed/30363767 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4728258 Text en Copyright © 2018 Zequan Xu 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 Review Article
Xu, Zequan
Li, Wenzhe
Wu, Lianqun
Xue, Shuang
Chen, Xu
Wu, Qiang
Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis
title Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparison of the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal iols with other types of iols: a meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181000/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30363767
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4728258
work_keys_str_mv AT xuzequan comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis
AT liwenzhe comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis
AT wulianqun comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis
AT xueshuang comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis
AT chenxu comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis
AT wuqiang comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis