Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Apodized diffractive versus refractive multifocal intraocular lenses: Optical and visual evaluation

2008; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 34; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.06.045

1873-4502

Beata Żelichowska, Marek Rękas, Andrzej Stankiewicz, Alejandro Cerviño, Robert Montés‐Micó,

Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies

To evaluate the optical and visual performance after implantation of refractive or apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).Military Health Service Institute, Warsaw, Poland.Uncorrected distance visual acuity, best distance-corrected visual acuity, best distance-corrected near visual acuity, distance contrast sensitivity under photopic conditions (CSV-1000), residual refractive error, and wavefront aberrations (LADARWave Hartmann-Shack wavefront analyzer) were measured in 23 patients who had bilateral implantation of the AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 IOL and 23 patients who had bilateral implantation of the ReZoom IOL....At the 6-month postoperative visit, the mean photopic uncorrected distance acuity was 0.03+/-0.05 (SD) in the ReSTOR group and 0.02+/-0.06 logMAR in the ReZoom group (both approximately 20/20) (P= .569). In all patients, the mean photopic best distance-corrected acuity was 0.00 logMAR (approximately 20/20) and the mean photopic best distance-corrected near acuity at 35 cm was 0.10 logMAR. The photopic contrast sensitivity was within the standard normal range in both IOL groups. The difference in photopic contrast sensitivity between groups was statistically significant (P<.001). Higher-order aberrations, in particular coma and spherical aberrations, were significantly higher in the ReZoom group (all P<.001).AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 and ReZoom IOLs provided good visual performance at distance and near under photopic conditions. Optical quality measures were significantly worse in patients with ReZoom IOLs.