• 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,

. 2016 ; 26 (6) : 612-617. [pub] 20160427

Language English Country Italy

Document type Journal Article

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.

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...