Cargando…

Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses

This study compared the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction following implantation of the Mix-and-Match bifocal IOLs (+ 2.75 D and + 3.25 D add power Tecnis Multifocal Model), EDOF IOL (Tecnis Symfony IOL), and Trifocal IOL (FineVision PodFT, PhysIOL). All outcomes were compared among t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paik, Dong Won, Park, Jun Sang, Yang, Chan Min, Lim, Dong Hui, Chung, Tae-Young
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7481789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32908159
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69318-y
_version_ 1783580680276410368
author Paik, Dong Won
Park, Jun Sang
Yang, Chan Min
Lim, Dong Hui
Chung, Tae-Young
author_facet Paik, Dong Won
Park, Jun Sang
Yang, Chan Min
Lim, Dong Hui
Chung, Tae-Young
author_sort Paik, Dong Won
collection PubMed
description This study compared the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction following implantation of the Mix-and-Match bifocal IOLs (+ 2.75 D and + 3.25 D add power Tecnis Multifocal Model), EDOF IOL (Tecnis Symfony IOL), and Trifocal IOL (FineVision PodFT, PhysIOL). All outcomes were compared among the three groups. The manifest refraction indicated that the EDOF group had significantly higher myopic spherical equivalent values than did the others. In the terms of visual acuity, there were no significant differences in far or intermediate visual acuity among the three groups. Only in near (33 cm), the EDOF group had significantly worse binocular visual acuity than did the Trifocal group (p = 0.002). Regarding to defocus curve, the Trifocal group had better defocus curves at near distances (− 2.0 to − 3.5 D; p = 0.001 vs. EDOF) than did the other two groups. In contrast sensitivity test, the EDOF group had relatively lower value than did the other two groups. In reading speed, only at 0.3 logMAR (6.5-point font), Mix-and-Match group had a significantly higher reading speed than did the other two groups (p =  < 0.001 vs. EDOF, p = 0.007 vs. Trifocal). also Mix-and-Match group showed significantly fewer visual artifacts. There were no differences between the three groups in terms of patient satisfaction. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04019691.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7481789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74817892020-09-11 Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses Paik, Dong Won Park, Jun Sang Yang, Chan Min Lim, Dong Hui Chung, Tae-Young Sci Rep Article This study compared the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction following implantation of the Mix-and-Match bifocal IOLs (+ 2.75 D and + 3.25 D add power Tecnis Multifocal Model), EDOF IOL (Tecnis Symfony IOL), and Trifocal IOL (FineVision PodFT, PhysIOL). All outcomes were compared among the three groups. The manifest refraction indicated that the EDOF group had significantly higher myopic spherical equivalent values than did the others. In the terms of visual acuity, there were no significant differences in far or intermediate visual acuity among the three groups. Only in near (33 cm), the EDOF group had significantly worse binocular visual acuity than did the Trifocal group (p = 0.002). Regarding to defocus curve, the Trifocal group had better defocus curves at near distances (− 2.0 to − 3.5 D; p = 0.001 vs. EDOF) than did the other two groups. In contrast sensitivity test, the EDOF group had relatively lower value than did the other two groups. In reading speed, only at 0.3 logMAR (6.5-point font), Mix-and-Match group had a significantly higher reading speed than did the other two groups (p =  < 0.001 vs. EDOF, p = 0.007 vs. Trifocal). also Mix-and-Match group showed significantly fewer visual artifacts. There were no differences between the three groups in terms of patient satisfaction. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04019691. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7481789/ /pubmed/32908159 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69318-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020, corrected publication 2021 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 license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license 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 license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Paik, Dong Won
Park, Jun Sang
Yang, Chan Min
Lim, Dong Hui
Chung, Tae-Young
Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses
title Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses
title_full Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses
title_fullStr Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses
title_short Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses
title_sort comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7481789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32908159
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69318-y
work_keys_str_mv AT paikdongwon comparingthevisualoutcomevisualqualityandsatisfactionamongthreetypesofmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT parkjunsang comparingthevisualoutcomevisualqualityandsatisfactionamongthreetypesofmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT yangchanmin comparingthevisualoutcomevisualqualityandsatisfactionamongthreetypesofmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT limdonghui comparingthevisualoutcomevisualqualityandsatisfactionamongthreetypesofmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT chungtaeyoung comparingthevisualoutcomevisualqualityandsatisfactionamongthreetypesofmultifocalintraocularlenses