Copenhagen 2016 Registration Programme Exhibitor Information Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Glaucoma Day 2016 Hotel Star Alliance
title

10 - 14 Sept. 2016, Bella Center, Copenhagen, Denmark

This Meeting has been awarded 27 CME credits

 

escrs app advert yo advert

Electrophysiological contrast sensitivity comparison between monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective clinical study

Search Title by author or title

Session Details

Session Title: Pseudophakic IOLs: Multifocal II

Session Date/Time: Tuesday 13/09/2016 | 08:00-10:30

Paper Time: 08:46

Venue: Auditorium C6

First Author: : A.Iggui ITALY

Co Author(s): :    G. Cillino   A. Casuccio   S. Di Naro   S. Cillino           

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare objective electrophysiological contrast sensitivity function (CSF) in patients bilaterally implanted with either diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) or monofocal IOLs by Pattern reversal Visual Evoked Potentials (prVEP) measurements

Setting:

Ophthalmology department, Palermo University, Italy

Methods:

Prospective clinical study of 45 cataract patients (90 eyes) randomly allocated to receive bilaterally one of the three IOL types: A: apodized diffractive and refractive Alcon Acrysof MIOL,B: full diffractive AMO Tecnis MIOL or C: Alcon Acrysof Monofocal IOL . Main Outcome Measures: One-year differences among the 3 groups in objective binocular CSF function measured by prVEP with sinusoid grating stimuli of 6 decreasing contrast levels , presented at 6 spatial frequencies. Secondary outcome measures: Psychophysical CSF measured with Vision Contrast Test System VCTS-6500, photopic uncorrected distance visual acuity, and mesopic and photopic uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuity.

Results:

Electrophysiological CSF curve had an inverted U-shaped morphology in all groups, with a biphasic pattern in Group B. CSF did not differ from 0.5 to 2.0 cpd (cycles per degree) in all groups. However, Acrysof multifocal group showed a lower CS than Tecnis multifocal group at 4, 8 and 12 cpd, but a lower value than Acrysof monofocal group at 8 cpd. Also, mean photopic and mesopic uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuity were worse in the monofocal group with respect to the two multifocal groups. Mesopic uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuity were better in Tecnis multifocal group.

Conclusions:

Our data suggest that the electrophysiological CSF behaves differently depending on the types of multifocal or monofocal IOLs. This may be related to visual acuity under certain conditions or to the optical characteristics of the IOL. We think this objective method might be a potential new tool to investigate on MIOL differences, advantages and drawbacks, and, ultimately, on subjective device-related quality of vision

Financial Disclosure:

NONE

Back to previous