Bilateral Versus Contralateral Implantation of Aspheric Diffractive Multifocal IOL
Narrative Responses:
Purpose
Compare outcomes with vision between patients implanted with bilateral ReSTOR 2.5 vs contralateral ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 multifocal IOLs.
Methods
Up to 103 patients, across 8 sites in Europe and South America, were randomized to receiving either bilateral ReSTOR 2.5 or contralateral ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 multifocal IOLs. In the latter group, ReSTOR 2.5 was implanted in the dominant eye and ReSTOR 3.0 in the non-dominant eye. At 3 months following second eye implant, patient rated their satisfaction with VISTAS questionnaire and range of vision was evaluated by defocus curve measurements with best distance correction (CVA) on a ETDRS logMAR chart. Contrast Sensitivity was measured using the Vector Vision chart.
Results
Significantly better near vision was measured in the contralateral group (0.10±0.13, n=50) than bilateral group (0.28±0.16, n=53, p< 0.01). Binocular and monocular defocus curve for both groups will be presented. No significant difference was observed in distance corrected visual acuity at distance 4m and intermediate 60 cm between the two groups. No statistical significance was measured in photopic or mesopic contrast sensitivity between the two groups at any spatial frequency. VISTAS questionnaire showed better spectacle independence in the contralateral group (62%) compared to bilateral group (30.2%). Both groups had significant improvement in postoperative vision without optical aids postoperatively.
Conclusion
Both contralateral restor 2.5/restor 3.0 and bilateral restor 2.5 patients attained good distance and intermediate vision. Contralateral ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 provided better range of vision at near and increased spectacle independence compared to bilateral 2.5. Results will be used to discuss selection of ReSTOR multifocal IOL combinations to match patient needs