-
Something wrong with this record ?
Impact of low mesopic contrast sensitivity outcomes in different types of modern multifocal intraocular lenses
AB. Plaza-Puche, JL. Alio, E. Sala, P. Mojzis,
Language English Country Italy
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
27135090
DOI
10.5301/ejo.5000777
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Contrast Sensitivity physiology MeSH
- Phacoemulsification * MeSH
- Lens Implantation, Intraocular * MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Lenses, Intraocular * MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Prosthesis Design MeSH
- Pseudophakia physiopathology MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Mesopic Vision physiology MeSH
- Visual Acuity physiology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
PURPOSE: To investigate the low mesopic contrast sensitivity function (LMCSF) of patients implanted with different modern optical bifocal and trifocal designs of multifocal intraocular lenses (mfIOLs). METHODS: This prospective, comparative, nonrandomized consecutive case series included 180 eyes that underwent cataract surgery. Six groups of eyes were differentiated: group A, eyes with the diffractive AT LISA tri 839MP; group B, eyes with diffractive FineVision; group C, eyes with the bifocal Lentis Mplus-LS313; group D, eyes with the diffractive bifocal Acri.Lisa 366D; group E, eyes with the diffractive apodized Acrysof ReSTOR SN6AD1; group F, as the control group, implanted with a monofocal spherical intraocular lens. The LMCSF was evaluated with the OPTEC® 6500 device at 3 months postoperatively using a luminance of 3 cd/m2. RESULTS: No significant differences among groups were detected in LMCSF for the spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 cpd (1.5 cpd: F = 1.81, p = 0.13; 3.0 cpd: F = 1.14, p = 0.14; 6.0 cpd: F = 1.87, p = 0.11; 12.0 cpd: F = 1.26, p = 0.29), but significant differences were found among groups for the spatial frequency of 18 cpd (F = 2.62, p = 0.03). When comparing the groups in pairs, only statistically significant differences were observed between groups E and F for the spatial frequency of 18.0 cpd (t = 3.27, p = 0.03) with better values for group F. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed in LMCSF among the different mfIOLs studied. The third focus of trifocal IOL models did not adversely affect the LMCSF. The ReSTOR SN6AD1 showed the poorest LMCSF for the highest spatial frequency analyzed when compared with the control group.
Eye Department Regional Hospital Havlickuv Brod Czech Republic
Vissum Alicante Alicante Spain
Vissum Alicante Alicante Spain Division of Ophthalmology Universidad Miguel Hernández Alicante Spain
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc17013443
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20170428121355.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 170413s2016 it f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.5301/ejo.5000777 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)27135090
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a it
- 100 1_
- $a Plaza-Puche, Ana B $u Vissum Alicante, Alicante - Spain.
- 245 10
- $a Impact of low mesopic contrast sensitivity outcomes in different types of modern multifocal intraocular lenses / $c AB. Plaza-Puche, JL. Alio, E. Sala, P. Mojzis,
- 520 9_
- $a PURPOSE: To investigate the low mesopic contrast sensitivity function (LMCSF) of patients implanted with different modern optical bifocal and trifocal designs of multifocal intraocular lenses (mfIOLs). METHODS: This prospective, comparative, nonrandomized consecutive case series included 180 eyes that underwent cataract surgery. Six groups of eyes were differentiated: group A, eyes with the diffractive AT LISA tri 839MP; group B, eyes with diffractive FineVision; group C, eyes with the bifocal Lentis Mplus-LS313; group D, eyes with the diffractive bifocal Acri.Lisa 366D; group E, eyes with the diffractive apodized Acrysof ReSTOR SN6AD1; group F, as the control group, implanted with a monofocal spherical intraocular lens. The LMCSF was evaluated with the OPTEC® 6500 device at 3 months postoperatively using a luminance of 3 cd/m2. RESULTS: No significant differences among groups were detected in LMCSF for the spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 cpd (1.5 cpd: F = 1.81, p = 0.13; 3.0 cpd: F = 1.14, p = 0.14; 6.0 cpd: F = 1.87, p = 0.11; 12.0 cpd: F = 1.26, p = 0.29), but significant differences were found among groups for the spatial frequency of 18 cpd (F = 2.62, p = 0.03). When comparing the groups in pairs, only statistically significant differences were observed between groups E and F for the spatial frequency of 18.0 cpd (t = 3.27, p = 0.03) with better values for group F. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed in LMCSF among the different mfIOLs studied. The third focus of trifocal IOL models did not adversely affect the LMCSF. The ReSTOR SN6AD1 showed the poorest LMCSF for the highest spatial frequency analyzed when compared with the control group.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
- 650 _2
- $a citlivost na kontrast $x fyziologie $7 D015350
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a implantace nitrooční čočky $7 D019654
- 650 12
- $a nitrooční čočky $7 D007910
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a vidění mezopické $x fyziologie $7 D055255
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 12
- $a fakoemulzifikace $7 D018918
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a protézy - design $7 D011474
- 650 _2
- $a pseudofakie $x patofyziologie $7 D019591
- 650 _2
- $a zraková ostrost $x fyziologie $7 D014792
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Alio, Jorge L $u Vissum Alicante, Alicante - Spain. Division of Ophthalmology, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante - Spain. $7 gn_A_00004282
- 700 1_
- $a Sala, Esperanza $u Vissum Alicante, Alicante - Spain.
- 700 1_
- $a Mojzis, Peter $u Eye Department, Regional Hospital, Havlickuv Brod - Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00180219 $t European journal of ophthalmology $x 1724-6016 $g Roč. 26, č. 6 (2016), s. 612-617
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27135090 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20170413 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20170428121717 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1199908 $s 974221
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2016 $b 26 $c 6 $d 612-617 $e 20160427 $i 1724-6016 $m European journal of ophthalmology $n Eur J Ophthalmol $x MED00180219
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20170413