Cargando…

A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study

BACKGROUND: To compare clinical outcomes and optical performance of a new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses (IOLs) with that of conventional monofocal IOLs. METHODS: Sixty eyes of 30 patients who underwent phacoemulsification with bilateral implantation of the ICB00 (1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huh, Jungah, Eom, Youngsub, Yang, Seul Ki, Choi, Young, Kim, Hyo Myung, Song, Jong Suk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8520272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34656091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02124-w
_version_ 1784584635467956224
author Huh, Jungah
Eom, Youngsub
Yang, Seul Ki
Choi, Young
Kim, Hyo Myung
Song, Jong Suk
author_facet Huh, Jungah
Eom, Youngsub
Yang, Seul Ki
Choi, Young
Kim, Hyo Myung
Song, Jong Suk
author_sort Huh, Jungah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare clinical outcomes and optical performance of a new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses (IOLs) with that of conventional monofocal IOLs. METHODS: Sixty eyes of 30 patients who underwent phacoemulsification with bilateral implantation of the ICB00 (15 patients) or ZCB00 (15 patients) IOLs were enrolled. Binocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), and distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) were measured at 4 weeks after surgery. Patient satisfaction for overall, near, intermediate, and distance vision were assessed. The binocular defocus curves were measured. The root mean square of modulation transfer function (MTF(RMS)) was measured in the optical bench study. RESULTS: The mean binocular DCIVA was significantly better in the ICB00 group (0.01 logMAR) compared to the ZCB00 group (0.13 logMAR), but CDVA and DCNVA were not. The patient satisfaction for near and intermediate vision was significantly higher in the ICB00 group compared to the ZCB00. However, there was no difference in patient satisfaction for overall and distance vision between two groups. The defocus curves showed that mean visual acuity of the ICB00 group was significantly better than that of the ZCB00 group at between − 1.00 D to − 3.00 D of defocus. The ICB00 IOL had higher MTF(RMS) values at between − 0.50 D to − 2.00 D of defocus compared to the ZCB00 IOL. CONCLUSIONS: The ICB00 IOL provides better binocular intermediate vision and higher satisfaction for near and intermediate vision than the ZCB00 IOL while maintaining excellent distance vision.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8520272
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85202722021-10-20 A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study Huh, Jungah Eom, Youngsub Yang, Seul Ki Choi, Young Kim, Hyo Myung Song, Jong Suk BMC Ophthalmol Research BACKGROUND: To compare clinical outcomes and optical performance of a new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses (IOLs) with that of conventional monofocal IOLs. METHODS: Sixty eyes of 30 patients who underwent phacoemulsification with bilateral implantation of the ICB00 (15 patients) or ZCB00 (15 patients) IOLs were enrolled. Binocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), and distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) were measured at 4 weeks after surgery. Patient satisfaction for overall, near, intermediate, and distance vision were assessed. The binocular defocus curves were measured. The root mean square of modulation transfer function (MTF(RMS)) was measured in the optical bench study. RESULTS: The mean binocular DCIVA was significantly better in the ICB00 group (0.01 logMAR) compared to the ZCB00 group (0.13 logMAR), but CDVA and DCNVA were not. The patient satisfaction for near and intermediate vision was significantly higher in the ICB00 group compared to the ZCB00. However, there was no difference in patient satisfaction for overall and distance vision between two groups. The defocus curves showed that mean visual acuity of the ICB00 group was significantly better than that of the ZCB00 group at between − 1.00 D to − 3.00 D of defocus. The ICB00 IOL had higher MTF(RMS) values at between − 0.50 D to − 2.00 D of defocus compared to the ZCB00 IOL. CONCLUSIONS: The ICB00 IOL provides better binocular intermediate vision and higher satisfaction for near and intermediate vision than the ZCB00 IOL while maintaining excellent distance vision. BioMed Central 2021-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8520272/ /pubmed/34656091 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02124-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Huh, Jungah
Eom, Youngsub
Yang, Seul Ki
Choi, Young
Kim, Hyo Myung
Song, Jong Suk
A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study
title A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study
title_full A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study
title_fullStr A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study
title_short A comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study
title_sort comparison of clinical outcomes and optical performance between monofocal and new monofocal with enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses: a case-control study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8520272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34656091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02124-w
work_keys_str_mv AT huhjungah acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT eomyoungsub acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT yangseulki acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT choiyoung acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT kimhyomyung acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT songjongsuk acomparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT huhjungah comparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT eomyoungsub comparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT yangseulki comparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT choiyoung comparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT kimhyomyung comparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy
AT songjongsuk comparisonofclinicaloutcomesandopticalperformancebetweenmonofocalandnewmonofocalwithenhancedintermediatefunctionintraocularlensesacasecontrolstudy