ISTANBUL escrs

Evaluation of a bi-toric, trifocal multifocal intraocular lens.

Session Details

Session Title: Cataract 1
Session Date/Time: Friday 20/02/2015 | 10:30-12:30
Paper Time: 11:54
Venue: Sadirvan B
First Author: : F.Kretz GERMANY
Co Author(s): :    D. Breyer   M. Gerl   H. Kaymak   R. Gerl   M. Müller   G. Auffarth

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Clinical evaluation of near, intermediate and distance visual acuity with a new bi-toric, trifocal multifocal intraocular lens for the correction of corneal astigmatism in presbyopic cataract surgery.

Setting:

IVCRC University of Heidelberg, Breyer & Kaymak, Augenklinik Ahaus

Methods:

In a prospective study we evaluated the functional outcome of cataract patient’s receiving a bi-toric, trifocal multifocal intraocular lens (AT LISA toric multifocal MIOL, Carl Zeiss Meditech, Germany) 3 month after surgery. Examinations included UDVA (ETDRS 4m), UIVA (ETDRS 80cm), UNVA (ETDRS 40cm) as well as CDVA, DCIVA and DCNVA [logMAR] in the same distances. Additionally we performed visual acuity testing’s in set and individual distances (uncorrected and distance corrected) with the use of the Salzburg Reading Desk.

Results:

Median binocular UDVA was -0.08, UIVA was –0.12 and UNVA 0.00 compared to a CDVA of -0.10, a DCIVA of -0.12 and a DCNVA of -0.06 [logMAR]. Regarding the Salzburg Reading Desk evaluation a binocular, objective UNVA (39.4 cm) of 0.11 similar to a subjective UNVA (38.9cm) could be found. Fort he intermediate range the objective UIVA was 0.09 (80.0cm) compared to a subjective UIVA of 0.03 (78.2cm).

Conclusions:

The bi-toric, trifocal multifocal intraocular lens offers a high amount of spectacle independance for daily tasks. Small postsurgical refractive errors can be balanced by the wide range of focus of those types of lense.

Financial Disclosure:

One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company

Back to previous