Comparison Study of Visual and Optical Outcomes of Multifocal IOLs

Gonçalves, Eduardo

Comparison Study of Visual and Optical Outcomes of Multifocal IOLs

Sunday, April 19, 2015: 1:17 PM

Room 1B (San Diego Convention Center)

Eduardo S. Gonçalves, MD

Wilson T. Hida, MD, PhD

Fernando De Bortoli Nogueira, MD

Mario Augusto Chaves, MD

Leonardo Costa Müller, MD

Sergio Colosio, MD

Anna Beatriz Muzachi, MD

André Gustavo R. de Araújo, MD

Patrick F. Tzelikis, MD, PhD

Milton R. Alves, MD, PhD

Purpose
To compare the visual and optical outcomes between 4 intraocular (IOLs) multifocal lenses: Tecnis three-piece model ZMA00, Tecnis one piece model ZMB00, AcrySoft Restor one-piece model SN6AD1, and Hanita Lenses one-piece model SeeLens MF.

Methods
Prospective nonrandomized evaluation of 130 eyes in 65 patients referred for bilateral cataract surgery. Exclusion criteria were preoperative corneal astigmatism more than 1.00 diopter and presence of any other ocular diseases, ocular surgery, axial myopia or even systemic disease. Intraoperative complications, doubts of in the capsular bag implantation and decentralization greater than 0.5 mm from the visual axis were another (additional) criteria for exclusion. The postoperative evaluation included measurement of uncorrected (and corrected) visual acuity for distance far, intermediate and near; contrast sensitivity and defocus curve visual acuity for distance, wavefront analysis, reading ability, and the degree of patient satisfaction.

Results
The study is in the final stage. The preliminary results indicate that the 4 groups lenses promote excellent refractive results for far and near distance. With better intermediate vision with Seelens MF group. The difference in results is attributed to the difference of near addition and suggests that the reading distance and intermediate and near vision habits are essential for choose the best lenses for each patient. The results suggest worse intermediate vision and the difference in distance to near vision. There was also difference in contrast sensitivity.

Conclusion
The preliminary results indicate that the 4 groups lenses promote excellent refractive results for far and near distance. With better intermediate vision with Seelens MF group. The difference in results is attributed to the difference of near addition. The results suggest worse intermediate vision and the difference in distance to near vision. There was also difference in contrast sensitivity.