Visual performance with accommodating and multifocal intraocular lenses

Abstract

Aim: To compare the visual functional outcomes with accommodating and multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods: Our retrospective comparative study included 51 patients (60 eyes) received implantation of an accommodating IOL (Tetraflex; 16 patients, 20 eyes), a refractive multifocal IOL (ReZoom; 18 patients, 20 eyes), or a diffractive multifocal IOL (ZMA00; 17 patients, 20 eyes). Subjective refraction, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), intraocular aberration, and subjective photic phenomena were detected at 3mo after surgery.

Results: The spherical equivalent in the three groups was -0.38±0.54 D, 0.14±0.56 D, and 0.35±0.41 D, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity among the groups (P=0.39). The ReZoom group had significantly better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity than the ZMA00 group (P=0.003). The ZMA00 group had significantly better near visual acuity than the other groups (P<0.05). Better contrast sensitivity values were observed in the Tetraflex group under most of the spatial frequencies conditions (P=0.025). The total aberration was lowest in the ZMA00 group (P=0.000), and the spherical aberration was highest in the Tetraflex group (P=0.000). The three groups had similar frequency of ghosting and glare, and the Tetraflex group had a low rate of halos (P=0.01).

Conclusion: Both accommodating and multifocal IOLs can successfully restore distance and uncorrected intermediate visual acuities. Tetraflex accommodating IOLs perform better in CS and with less halos of photic phenomena. ReZoom refractive multifocal IOLs have better performance in distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity than ZMA00 diffractive multifocal IOLs, and the latter achieved better near visual acuity and efficiently decreased the optical aberration.

Keywords: accommodating; intraocular lens; multifocal; visual performance.

Figures

Figure 1. Contrast sensitivity showed as the mean of lgCS in photopic and mesopic with/without glare conditions.