Lisbon 2017 Delegate Registration Programme Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Satellites OneWorld Travel Discount
escrs app advert

Analysis of the clinical outcomes with diffractive ENLIGHTEN (ENhanced LIGHT ENergy) and an extended-range-of-vision intraocular lens

Search Title by author or title

Session Details

Session Title: Pseudophakic IOLs: Multifocal I

Session Date/Time: Sunday 08/10/2017 | 08:00-10:00

Paper Time: 08:34

Venue: Room 2.1

First Author: : E.Pedrotti ITALY

Co Author(s): :    F. Carones   E. Bonacci   P. Talli   R. Mastropasqua   E. Bruni   G. Marchini     

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes with a Diffractive enhanced light energy (ENLIGHTEN) IOL and an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL based on achromatic diffractive technology.

Setting:

University Eye Clinic Verona, Veneto, Italy. Ophthalmic centre Carones Milano, Lombardia, Italy

Methods:

Multicentric prospective comparative study including 64 patients referred for bilateral cataract surgery, equally divided in two groups. Exclusion criteria included any other eye disease, previous eye surgery, high axial myopia (>6D), preoperative corneal astigmatism >1.00 cylindrical diopter (D) and complications. Evaluation included measurement of uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), distance-corrected near and intermediate visual acuity (DCNVA, DCIVA), analysis of contrast sensitivity (CS), ocular optical quality (Optical Quality Analysis System), visual defocus curve and quality of life (National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 Questionnaire) outcomes at 3-month follow-up.

Results:

Significant differences were observed among group in DCIVA (p = 0.004) and DCNVA (p = 0.05). In binocular defocus curve significant differences among groups were observed for -4.00 and -3.50-diopter defocus levels (p = 0,005 and p = 0,007) and for -1,50 diopter defocus level (p = 0,04). CS was significantly better in ERV group for all spatial frequency (P< 0,001). No significant differences were observed in ocular optical quality parameters. Significantly better scores were obtained for dependence on correction (p = 0,046), worry (p = 0.04), activity limitations (p = 0,052) and symptoms (p = 0.05).

Conclusions:

ERV IOL provide excellent distance visual acuity as well as ENLIGHTEN IOL, a greater intermediate visual acuity and a lower performance a 40 cm. Both lenses promoted good quality of vision and ERV IOL showed better quality of visual outcomes. Both these IOLs produce high levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction, however significantly better scores were obtained in ERV group except for symptoms. This study suggests that the ERV technology enlarge the number of cataract patients that could benefit from prebyopia correcting IOL implantation

Financial Disclosure:

NONE

Back to previous