Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE To assess the visual effects of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) compared with the current standard treatment of monofocal IOL implantation. DESIGN Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS The study was performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Computer database and manual searches were made to identify all randomized trials comparing multifocal IOL implantation with a monofocal control group. Data were extracted using a standardized form and analyzed using Review Manager software. When study reporting allowed meaningful comparison, meta-analysis was performed. The chi-square test was used to examine heterogeneity between studies. Odds ratios were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and standardized mean differences for continuous variables. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES There is no single outcome measure that can be thought of as summarizing the efficacy of an IOL. A number of different outcomes had to be examined. The primary outcomes for this review were distance and near visual acuity (unaided and corrected) and spectacle dependence. The secondary outcomes for this review included depth of field, contrast sensitivity, glare, subjective assessment of quality of life or visual function, and surgical complications. RESULTS Eight trials were identified. There was significant variability among the trials in the outcomes reported. Distance acuity was similar in multifocal and monofocal IOLs. Unaided near vision tended to improve with the multifocal IOL. This resulted in decreased spectacle dependence with use of the multifocal IOL. Adverse effects included reduced contrast sensitivity and the subjective experience of halos around lights. CONCLUSIONS Multifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs will vary between patients, with motivation to achieve spectacle independence likely to be the deciding factor.

[1]  J Wollensak,et al.  Comparison of a diffractive bifocal and a monofocal intraocular lens , 1996, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[2]  A Lang,et al.  Interpreting multifocal intraocular lens modulation transfer functions , 1993, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[3]  R. Steinert,et al.  A prospective comparative study of the AMO ARRAY zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[4]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[5]  P Desai,et al.  Gains from cataract surgery: visual function and quality of life. , 1996, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[6]  J Wollensak,et al.  A prospective evaluation of a diffractive versus a refractive designed multifocal intraocular lens. , 1997, Ophthalmology.

[7]  M. Knorz,et al.  Evaluation of contrast acuity and defocus curve in bifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses , 1993, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[8]  J T Holladay,et al.  Optical performance of multifocal intraocular lenses , 1990, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[9]  S. Webber,et al.  Contrast sensitivity after implantation of diffractive bifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses , 1998, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[10]  Jonathan C. Javitt,et al.  Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation , 2000 .

[11]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. , 1983, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  N Orzalesi,et al.  Performance of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in extracapsular cataract surgery , 1994, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[13]  D. L. Hall,et al.  A prospective, randomized, double-masked comparison of a zonal-progressive multifocal intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. , 1992, Ophthalmology.

[14]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Systematic Reviews in Health Care , 2001 .

[15]  J C Javitt,et al.  Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a multinational clinical trial evaluating clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

[16]  S P Percival,et al.  Prospectively randomized trial comparing the pseudoaccommodation of the AMO ARRAY multifocal lens and a monofocal lens , 1993, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[17]  J C Javitt,et al.  Outcomes of cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: functional status and quality of life. , 1997, Ophthalmology.

[18]  R. Lindstrom,et al.  Food and Drug Administration study update. One-year results from 671 patients with the 3M multifocal intraocular lens. , 1993, Ophthalmology.

[19]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context: Second Edition , 2008 .

[20]  Steff Lewis,et al.  Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  N. Freudenthaler,et al.  Binocular function after bilateral implantation of monofocal and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. , 1999, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[22]  M. Leyland,et al.  Prospective randomised double-masked trial of bilateral multifocal, bifocal or monofocal intraocular lenses , 2002, Eye.

[23]  Kamlesh,et al.  Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. , 2001, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.

[24]  D R Sanders,et al.  Visual and refractive results of multifocal intraocular lenses. , 1991, Ophthalmology.

[25]  A. Reidy,et al.  National cataract surgery survey 1997–8: a report of the results of the clinical outcomes , 1999, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[26]  A. El‐Maghraby,et al.  Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses Visual and refractive comparisons , 1992, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.