- Vienna '18
- Athens 2019
- ESCRS Player
- On Demand
- ESCRS iLearn
- ESCRS YO's
First Author: R.Lapid-Gortzak THE NETHERLANDS
Co Author(s): J. van der Linden I. van der Meulen
Back to previous
To report outcomes of a comparison between a new design apodized diffractive hydrophilic multifocal IOL, and a well-known apodized diffractive hydrophobic multifocal IOL.
Private refractive surgery center,
A comparative case cohort of patients, implanted with the Seelens MF (Hanita Lenses, Israel) in 48 eyes and the SN6AD1 in 37 eyes were compared in terms of refractive and visual outcomes, and in terms of visual quality and incidence of halos and satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively.
Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) for the Seelens MF was logMAR 0.02 + 0.07 versus 0.04 + 0.09. Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) was statistically significantly better with the Seelens MF: -0.04 + 0.05 versus -0.01 + 0.04 (p<0.019). There was no clinical or statistical significant difference at the 40 cm distance: 0.09 + 0.12 versus 0.08 + 0.09. Patients implanted with the Seelens MF had a clinically and statistically better Uncorrected Near Visual Acuity (UNVA) at the 50 and 60 cm distances (P<0.03 and P<0.007, respectively). In terms of satisfaction the lenses performed equally. Halos were seen less often with the Seelens MF. Straylight, as a parameter for visual quality, was significantly less with the Seelens.
The Seelens MF, performs equally well as the SN6AD1 for the distance corrected and uncorrected visual acuities. For the UNVA the Seelens performs comparably to the SN6AD1 at the 40 cm, while it is clinically and statistically better at the 50 and 60 cm distances. The Seelens seems to allow for a greater depth of focus, decrease straylight, and increase visual quality. More study is needed to corroborate the last finding.
... 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 company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company