Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes with a low add multifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lenses both implanted with mini-monovision.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), spectacle needs, photic phenomena, and quality of life parameters of patients bilaterally implanted with a low add multifocal (MIOL) or an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL), both with intended mini-monovision.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, comparative study, patients were randomized to receive either Tecnis +2.75 D (ZKB00) (MIOL Group, n = 15) or Tecnis Symfony (ZXR00) (EDOF Group, n = 14) for bilateral implantation with mini-monovision (-0.50 D). Binocular logMAR uncorrected visual acuities (UVA), monocular defocus curves, CS with CSV 1000-E, and Pelli-Robson Test (PRT), spectacle needs and quality of life parameters with NEI RQL-42 questionnaire were evaluated at postoperative 1, 3, and 6 months.

Results

Results of MIOL and EDOF Groups at postoperative month 6 are as follows: distance (6 m) UVA -0.03 ± 0.05 and -0.05 ± 0.06 (p = 0.938), intermediate (60 cm) UVA, 0.04 ± 0.08 and -0.03 ± 0.07 (p = 0.046); near (40 cm) UVA, 0.22 ± 0.08 and 0.15 ± 0.07 (p = 0.046); near spectacle needs, 26.7% and 14.3% (p > 0.05), respectively. Better visual acuity was achieved in the EDOF Group between the defocus range of -0.50 and -1.75 D (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found regarding photic phenomena and CS evaluated with CSV 1000-E between the two IOL groups at 6 months after surgery (otherwise there are differences at 1 and 3 months in favor of EDOF). However, EDOF Group performed better in mesopic CS evaluated with PRT (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

When implanted with mini-monovision better binocular uncorrected visual performance at intermediate and near distances achieved with EDOF than low add MIOL.

SUBMITTER: Sevik MO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9151652 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical outcomes with a low add multifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lenses both implanted with mini-monovision.

Sevik Mehmet Orkun MO Akkaya Turhan Semra S Toker Ebru E

Eye (London, England) 20210611 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), spectacle needs, photic phenomena, and quality of life parameters of patients bilaterally implanted with a low add multifocal (MIOL) or an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL), both with intended mini-monovision.<h4>Methods</h4>In this prospective, randomized, comparative study, patients were randomized to receive either Tecnis +2.75 D (ZKB00) (MIOL Group, n = 15) or Tecnis Symfony (ZXR00) (EDOF Group, n ...[more]

PMID: 34117383

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeMini-monovision is a vision correction technique that allows for a broader spectrum of spectacle independence while minimizing anisometropia. This systemic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of pseudophakic mini-monovision with three types of intraocular lenses (IOLs): monofocal, enhanced monofocal, and extended depth of focus (EDOF).MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE to identify studies reporting mini-monovision outcomes within the three categories of IOLs up to July 2024. Inclusion criteria were studies with more than 20 patients, target refraction to achieve mini-monovision difference in the fellow eye, and minimum follow-up of 3 months. The primary outcome measure was uncorrected binocular intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA). The secondary outcomes were binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity, photic phenomenon, enhancement surgeries and IOL exchange.ResultsA total of 113 studies were screened, of which 19, with a total of 1,530 patients, were eligible for inclusion in this review. Mean logMAR binocular UCIVA was 0.16 ± 0.01, 0.11 ± 0.06, 0.08 ± 0.07 (p = 0.41), and mean logMAR UCDVA was 0.08 ± 0.05, 0.04 ± 07, 0.04 ± 0.04 (p = 0.36), in the monofocal, enhanced monofocal, and EDOF groups, respectively. The mean spectacle independence rate was 51% ± 22.1, 55% ± 35.4 and 63.4% ± 24.6 (p = 0.05), respectively, in the monofocal, enhanced monofocal and EDOF groups. A comparable low incidence of halos and glare was observed when enhanced monofocal lenses were evaluated against traditional monofocal lenses. EDOF lenses have, however, demonstrated mixed results. The complications, IOL exchange, and excimer laser enhancement rates were low across all groups.ConclusionWhile enhanced monofocal and EDOF IOLs may provide slightly better binocular intermediate visual outcomes and higher spectacle independence compared to monofocal lenses with regards to mini-monovision and intermediate vision performance, the differences are not statistically significant. All three IOL types exhibit high patient satisfaction rates when choosing a mini-monovision approach with decreased dependence on spectacles.

Project description:BackgroundNew intraocular lenses (IOLs) have emerged since the originally coined monofocal and multifocal IOLs. The extended depth of focus (EDoF) and enhanced monofocal IOLs (mono-EDoF) that have appeared in the last decade have caused some confusion in their classification. The aim of this review was to summarize the outcomes provided by mono-EDOF IOLs and to determine which of the endpoints, described by the American National Standard (ANSI) for EDoF IOLs, are fulfilled.MethodsThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and data extraction. The search strategy was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, but not by language. The results are presented as a narrative summary accompanied by tables, in alignment with the objectives of this scoping review. Compliance with the endpoints for clinical outcomes described in the American National Standard Z80.35-2018 (ANSI) for EDoF lenses was checked and additional endpoints were defined.ResultsTwo systematic reviews, 13 laboratory, 21 clinical, and two mixed studies were included. Tecnis Eyhance was the mono-EDOF with the highest volume of evidence to date. Although laboratory studies included other IOLs, clinical evidence for them is still scarce, with only one study of IsoPure compared to a standard monofocal IOL. Evidence in comparison to EDoF lenses is also scarce, even for Tecnis Eyhance, with only three studies including this lens in comparison to an EDoF lens. After evaluation of the ANSI criteria, agreement was found in the failure for the increase in depth of field equal to or greater than 0.5 D for a visual acuity (VA) level of 0.2 logMAR and none of the studies supported that the median monocular VA at intermediate distance was at least 0.2 logMAR.ConclusionsAdditional clinical evidence is required for other mono-EDOF IOLs beyond Tecnis Eyhance. Until the arrival of a standard classification, mono-EDOF should be better still classified as monofocal because the ANSI standards were not fully met.

Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes with a low add multifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lenses both implanted with mini-monovision.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Clinical outcomes with a low add multifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lenses both implanted with mini-monovision.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets