Bilateral Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: 10-Year Follow-Up.

Autor:	Giglio R; Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy., De Giacinto C; Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy., Inferrera L; Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy., Fanni D; Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy., Milan S; Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy., Cuna A; Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy., Toro MD; Eye Clinic, Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.; Chair and Department of General and Paediatric Ophthalmology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland., Zweifel S; Eye Clinic, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland., Ravalico G; Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy., Tognetto D; Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde [Klin Monbl Augenheilkd] 2023 Apr; Vol. 240 (4), pp. 426-434. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Apr 25.
DOI:	10.1055/a-2031-2556
Abstrakt:	Purpose: To evaluate and compare the long-term results after bilateral implantation of different multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs). Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 42 patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral MIOL implantation. Patients were divided into 5 groups: Group 1 received a refractive ReZoom NGX1 IOL (AMO), Group 2 a diffractive Acrysof ReSTOR SA60D3 IOL (Alcon), and Group 3 a diffractive Tecnis ZM900 IOL (AMO). Group 4 and Group 5 were implanted using the mix and match approach with refractive ReZoom-diffractive ReSTOR IOL and refractive ReZoom-diffractive Tecnis ZM900 IOL, respectively. Primary outcome measures were distance, near, and intermediate distance visual acuity measured 6 months (T0) and 10 years (T1) after surgery. Secondary outcomes were defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, patients' satisfaction, and spectacle independence. Results: All patients achieved best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) greater than 0.11 logMAR and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) greater than 0.14 logMAR at both time points. A decrease in contrast sensitivity was evident, particularly at high spatial frequencies; at T1, Group 4 reported statistically higher values than Group 2 at 12 cycles/degree and 18 cycles/degree and statistically higher values than Group 3 at 18 cycles/degree. Great overall satisfaction was reported even in the presence of dysphotopsia. Tecnis ZM900 IOL showed the lowest incidence of posterior capsular opacification. Conclusion: MIOLs could provide adequate functional vision and patient satisfaction, despite the incidence of side effects, in carefully selected patients desiring spectacle independence. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. (Thieme. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu