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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |