- Vienna '18
- ESCRS Player
- On Demand
- ESCRS iLearn
- ESCRS YO's
Session Title: Multifocal Technology and Comparative studies
Session Date/Time: Tuesday 08/10/2013 | 08:00-10:30
Paper Time: 08:27
Venue: Auditorium (First Floor)
First Author: : J.Pepose USA
Co Author(s): : M. Qazi
To compare visual outcomes, contrast sensitivity and quality of vision metrics with 3 FDA-approved presbyopia-correcting IOLs.
Private ophthalmology practice.
This was a prospective, randomized, partially masked, post-market study of three groups of 26 patients implanted bilaterally with one of 3 IOLs (Crystalens AO, Tecnis Multifocal Acrylic, ReSTOR +3) designed to improve distance, intermediate and near vision. The primary efficacy outcome was the Logarithm of the Mean of Mesopic Contrast Sensitivity (without glare at five spatial frequencies). Secondary effectiveness endpoints include high and low contrast VA, UCDVA, UCIVA, UCNVA (16 and 32 inches), optical scatter, depth of focus, visual quality metrics, glare meter, and subject satisfaction.
Patients with bilateral Crystalens AO had better mesopic contrast scores than Tecnis MF at lower spatial frequencies, better low contrast corrected distance acuity than Tecnis MF, and superior uncorrected and distance corrected intermediate vision than Tecnis MF or ReSTOR 3.0. In contrast, Tecnis MF and ReSTOR 3.0 have better distance corrected near vision than Crystalens AO and required lower add for BCNVA. Crystalens AO has less halos than Tecnis MF. Tecnis MF and ReSTOR 3.0 had ~50% higher scatter index than Crystalens AO. Crystalens had narrower 50% and 10% PSF than ReSTOR 3.0 or Tecnis MF.
Each presbyopia-correcting IOL has exploited diverse strategies to enhance depth of focus. These are associated with different compromises with regard to near and intermediate visual acuity, halos and photic phenomena, optical scatter and other aspects of visual quality.
... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, ... research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company
Please wait while information is loading.