A prospective evaluation of a diffractive versus a refractive designed multifocal intraocular lens.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate prospectively a diffractive (811E, Pharmacia; power add +4.0 D) versus a refractive (PA154N, Allergan; power add +3.5 D) designed multifocal lens. PARTICIPANTS Eighty patients planned for cataract surgery without additional ocular pathologies were randomized into the diffractive or refractive group, respectively. INTERVENTION A standardized no-stitch phacoemulsification with implantation of one of the two multifocal lenses was performed in each patient. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Distance and near-visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, low contrast visual acuity, glare visual acuity, and depth of focus were measured after surgery. RESULTS All treated patients had best-corrected visual acuities of 20/30 or better. Near-uncorrected vision was significantly better (P < 0.0001) with the diffractive lens (mean, J1) than with the refractive lens (mean, J4). Low contrast visual acuity (61 +/- 12% versus 59 +/- 9%), glare visual acuity (39 +/- 19% versus 38 +/- 14%), and contrast sensitivity (1.48 +/- 0.08 versus 1.50 +/- 0.12) were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Both lens designs showed satisfactory functional results with advantages for the diffractive lens design.

[1]  Abteilung Augenheilkunde,et al.  Pseudoakkommodation diffraktiver Multifokallinsen und Monofokallinsen , 1993 .

[2]  T. Zeyen,et al.  Multifocal IOL implantation: 16 cases. , 1991, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  D. Worthen,et al.  The FDA report on intraocular lenses. , 1983, Australian journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  D. Kurosaka,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a five‐zone refractive multifocal intraocular lens , 1996, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

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

[6]  J. Wollensak,et al.  [Can the diffractive multifocal posterior chamber lens be implanted in routine lens implantation?]. , 1994, Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft.

[7]  T. Kohnen,et al.  Changes in pupil size induced by phacoemulsification and posterior chamber lens implantation: Consequences for multifocal lenses , 1996 .

[8]  P. Percival.  An update on multifocal lens implants , 1992, Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology.

[9]  C. T. Post,et al.  Comparison of depth of focus and low-contrast acuities for monofocal versus multifocal intraocular lens patients at 1 year. , 1992, Ophthalmology.

[10]  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.

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

[12]  G. Rubin,et al.  Comparison of acuity, contrast sensitivity, and disability glare before and after cataract surgery. , 1993, Archives of ophthalmology.

[13]  H. Beekhuis,et al.  Comparison of the Storz bifocal zonal and the 3M diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses , 1995, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

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

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

[16]  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.