1 / 12

G. Ravalico, D. Fanni

Visual outcome comparison of bilateral multifocal diffractive and refractive IOLs implantation vs "Mix and Match" approach implantation. G. Ravalico, D. Fanni. The Author has no proprietary interest in any products or devices discussed in this presentation. University Eye Clinic

glenda
Download Presentation

G. Ravalico, D. Fanni

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visual outcome comparison of bilateral multifocal diffractive and refractive IOLs implantation vs "Mix and Match" approach implantation G. Ravalico, D. Fanni The Author has no proprietary interest in any products or devices discussed in this presentation University Eye Clinic Trieste (Italy) Head: Prof. Giuseppe Ravalico

  2. Purpose To compare visual outcomes and contrast sensitivity at far, intermediate and near distances, reading ability, level of satisfaction and quality of vision of patients bilaterally implanted with refractive multifocal AMO ReZoom and with diffractive bifocal Alcon Restor or AMO Tecnis IOLs with patients implanted with refractive AMO ReZoom IOLs in one eye and with diffractive AMO Tecnis or Alcon Restor IOLs in the controlateral eye.

  3. Materials and Methods • Group A: Tecnis(26 pts; 12 F - 14 M) • Group B: ReZoom(23 pts; 14 F - 10 M) • Group C: Restor (23 pts; 13 F - 10 M) • Group D: Tecnis - ReZoom(35 pts; 19 F - 16 M) • Group E: Restor - ReZoom(21 pts; 16 F - 5 M) Age range: 50-80 yrs (mean 70.5 yrs) AMO ReZoom Refractive MIOL Alcon ReSTOR Diffractive MIOL AMO Tecnis Diffractive MIOL INCLUSION CRITERIA EXCLUSION CRITERIA • Age range 50-80 yrs • Uneventful bilateral cataract surgery • Preoperative visual acuity > 0.2 logMAR • Mental receptiveness • Astigmatism > 2D • Concomitant ocular diseases

  4. Materials and Methods • Best distance-corrected far, intermediate and near visual acuity (BCDVA, BCDIVA, BCDNVA) • Defocus curve • Reading speed (MNReading Charts) • Contrast sensitivity at far, intermediate and near distances (VCTS 6500, 200 lux) • Modified VF-7 questionnaire

  5. Best corrected distance visual acuity % pts Logarithmic Visual Acuity Chart “ETDRS” Chart R n° 2110 Snellen Chi square ns BCDVA was satisfactory in all patients without statistically significant differences among the groups. 100% of patients in all groups reached VA better than 20/40. Most of patients reached 20/20 VA.

  6. Best distance-corrected near visual acuity % pts Logarithmic Visual Acuity Chart 2000 “NEW ETDRS” n° 2106 Snellen Chi square p<0.05 Near visual acuity was significantly better in patients implanted with bifocal IOLs, in particular with Tecnis IOL, than with multifocal IOLs.

  7. Best distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity Logarithmic Visual Acuity Chart 2000 “NEW ETDRS” n° 2106 for testing at 40 cm The Snellen ratio was applied to use this test at 60 (1.5x) and 80 (2x) 80 cm 60 cm % pts % pts Snellen Snellen Chi square p<0.05 The percentage of patients reaching high values of intermediate visual acuity was high in all study groups except the ReStor group.

  8. Binocularvisualacuity vs defocus Snellen 5,92 Depth of focus 5,08 Depth of focus 6,20 Depth of focus 5,47 Depth of focus 4,95 Depth of focus ANOVA p<0.05 • Tecnis • ReZoom • Restor • Tecnis+ReZoom • Restor+ReZoom The bifocal IOLs showed a better near peak of vision than multifocal IOLs. Intermediate visual acuity was significantly better with multifocal ReZoom and bifocal Tecnis than with Restor IOL. “Mix and Match” patients obtained high values of visual acuity at all distances.

  9. Tecnis • ReZoom • Restor • Tecnis + ReZoom • Restor + ReZoom Contrast sensitivity (VCTS 6500, 200 lux) Far Near log C.S. log C.S. cycles / deg cycles / deg Intermediate log C.S. A slight decrease in contrast sensitivity at near and intermediate distances was noted in all patients. “Mix and Match” patients performed better than other groups. cycles/deg

  10. Modified VF-7 test Modified VF-7 questionnaire was used to evaluate the quality of vision and the patient satisfaction for intermediate and near distance everyday activities.When patients were requested to score daily tasks, no significant differences were noted in particular for activities requiring intermediate vision. Only the halos presence was statistically higher in the Tecnis-ReZoom group.

  11. MN ReadingCharts W/min MN reading Charts Tecnis ReZoom Restor Tecnis+ ReZoom Restor+ ReZoom No significant differences were observed among the groups in the reading speed.

  12. Conclusions • Even though far, intermediate and near distance performances were acceptable in all study groups, diffractive IOLs proved slightly better than refractive IOLs at near distance. • Intermediate visual acuity was better with refractive multifocal and bifocal “full diffractive” IOLs. • A slight decrease in contrast sensitivity, particularly at near and intermediate distances, was noted in all patients. Bilateral implantation of multifocal IOLs with “Mix and Match approach” assures visual performances comparable with symmetrical bilateral implantation with diffractive and refractive multifocal IOLs.

More Related