Cargando…

Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses

Objective (aim): to test the refractive and visual outcomes and the quality of vision after the bilateral implantation of three different multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in patients with age-related cataract. Methods: In this retrospective, comparative study including 90 eyes of 45 cataract pa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Serdiuk, Valerii, Ustymenko, Svetlana, Fokina, Svetlana, Ivantsov, Ivan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Romanian Society of Ophthalmology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7739015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33367174
http://dx.doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2020.58
_version_ 1783623244008390656
author Serdiuk, Valerii
Ustymenko, Svetlana
Fokina, Svetlana
Ivantsov, Ivan
author_facet Serdiuk, Valerii
Ustymenko, Svetlana
Fokina, Svetlana
Ivantsov, Ivan
author_sort Serdiuk, Valerii
collection PubMed
description Objective (aim): to test the refractive and visual outcomes and the quality of vision after the bilateral implantation of three different multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in patients with age-related cataract. Methods: In this retrospective, comparative study including 90 eyes of 45 cataract patients, bilateral implantation of either the hydrophilic trifocal Liberty® 677MY capsular bag IOL, the hydrophilic AT LISA® tri 839M lens, or the hydrophobic AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® IOL was performed during routine cataract surgery. Refractive outcomes, visual acuities (VA) for far, intermediate and near distances, as well as visual quality, dysphotopic events and spectacle use were evaluated six months postoperatively. Results: VA curves were similar for the three MIOLs, however the Liberty lens seemed to be superior for far and near, while AT LISA tri provided somewhat better VA in the intermediate range. Refractive correction was the most effective with the Liberty IOL (p=0.0131). Dysphotopic phenomena were usually perceived in low light conditions. Their frequency was lower with the AT LISA tri and Liberty lenses. Symptoms were significantly less disturbing for patients implanted with the Liberty lens, two-thirds of AT LISA tri and Liberty patients, while only 57% of PanOptix patients achieved spectacle independence. Conclusions: All examined MIOLs were found to be safe and efficient in presbyopia-correction of cataract patients, however different models had different advantages. The vision preferences of each patient should always be taken into consideration when choosing a MIOL, and the possible occurrence of dysphotopic events should be also clearly communicated in each case. Abbreviations: ACD = Anterior chamber depth, ANOVA = Analysis of variance, AXL = Axial length, CDVA = Corrected distance visual acuity, CYL = Cylinder; Cylindric refraction, D = Diopter, IOL = Intraocular lens, K1; K2 = Keratometry values, MIOL = Multifocal intraocular lens, n = Number of cases, n.a. = Not applicable, Postop = Postoperative, QoV = Quality of Vision, SD = Standard deviation, SEQ = Spherical equivalent, SPH = Sphere; Spherical refraction, UDVA = Uncorrected distance visual acuity, UIVA = Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, UNVA = Uncorrected near visual acuity, VA = Visual acuity
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7739015
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Romanian Society of Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77390152020-12-22 Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses Serdiuk, Valerii Ustymenko, Svetlana Fokina, Svetlana Ivantsov, Ivan Rom J Ophthalmol General Articles Objective (aim): to test the refractive and visual outcomes and the quality of vision after the bilateral implantation of three different multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in patients with age-related cataract. Methods: In this retrospective, comparative study including 90 eyes of 45 cataract patients, bilateral implantation of either the hydrophilic trifocal Liberty® 677MY capsular bag IOL, the hydrophilic AT LISA® tri 839M lens, or the hydrophobic AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® IOL was performed during routine cataract surgery. Refractive outcomes, visual acuities (VA) for far, intermediate and near distances, as well as visual quality, dysphotopic events and spectacle use were evaluated six months postoperatively. Results: VA curves were similar for the three MIOLs, however the Liberty lens seemed to be superior for far and near, while AT LISA tri provided somewhat better VA in the intermediate range. Refractive correction was the most effective with the Liberty IOL (p=0.0131). Dysphotopic phenomena were usually perceived in low light conditions. Their frequency was lower with the AT LISA tri and Liberty lenses. Symptoms were significantly less disturbing for patients implanted with the Liberty lens, two-thirds of AT LISA tri and Liberty patients, while only 57% of PanOptix patients achieved spectacle independence. Conclusions: All examined MIOLs were found to be safe and efficient in presbyopia-correction of cataract patients, however different models had different advantages. The vision preferences of each patient should always be taken into consideration when choosing a MIOL, and the possible occurrence of dysphotopic events should be also clearly communicated in each case. Abbreviations: ACD = Anterior chamber depth, ANOVA = Analysis of variance, AXL = Axial length, CDVA = Corrected distance visual acuity, CYL = Cylinder; Cylindric refraction, D = Diopter, IOL = Intraocular lens, K1; K2 = Keratometry values, MIOL = Multifocal intraocular lens, n = Number of cases, n.a. = Not applicable, Postop = Postoperative, QoV = Quality of Vision, SD = Standard deviation, SEQ = Spherical equivalent, SPH = Sphere; Spherical refraction, UDVA = Uncorrected distance visual acuity, UIVA = Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, UNVA = Uncorrected near visual acuity, VA = Visual acuity Romanian Society of Ophthalmology 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7739015/ /pubmed/33367174 http://dx.doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2020.58 Text en ©Romanian Society of Ophthalmology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle General Articles
Serdiuk, Valerii
Ustymenko, Svetlana
Fokina, Svetlana
Ivantsov, Ivan
Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses
title Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses
title_full Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses
title_fullStr Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses
title_short Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses
title_sort comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses
topic General Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7739015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33367174
http://dx.doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2020.58
work_keys_str_mv AT serdiukvalerii comparisonofthreedifferentpresbyopiacorrectingintraocularlenses
AT ustymenkosvetlana comparisonofthreedifferentpresbyopiacorrectingintraocularlenses
AT fokinasvetlana comparisonofthreedifferentpresbyopiacorrectingintraocularlenses
AT ivantsovivan comparisonofthreedifferentpresbyopiacorrectingintraocularlenses