London 2014 Registration Visa Letters Programme Satellite Meetings Glaucoma Day 2014 Exhibition Hotel Booking Virtual Exhibition Star Alliance
london escrs

Course handouts are now available
Click here


Come to London

video-icon

WATCH to find out why


Site updates:

Programme Updates. Programme Overview and - Video Symposium on Challenging Cases now available.


Posters

Search Abstracts by author or title
(results will display both Free Papers & Poster)

Blended Vision. A comparative study of visual performance using Alcon ReSTOR 2.5 and 3.0D versus AMO Tecnis ZKB00 2.75 and ZLB00 3.25D.

Poster Details

First Author: K.Gundersen NORWAY

Co Author(s):    R. Potvin              

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare binocular near, intermediate, distance vision and quality of vision, when two different diffractive multifocal IOL with different near add are implanted binocularly.

Setting:

Single ophthalmology clinic.

Methods:

Patients implanted with different diffractive multifocal IOLs were recruited after surgery and had their visual acuity tested, and quality of vision evaluated, at a single diagnostic visit between 3 and 6 months after second-eye surgery. Study subjects were devided into two groups. Study group A (30 subjects) had ReSTOR 2.5D in their dominant eye and ReSTOR 3.0D in their non-dominant eye. Study group B (19 subjects) had AMO 2.75D in their dominant eye and 3.25D in their non-dominant eye. Study subjects were tested for binocular uncorrected and best distant corrected vision at near, intermediate and at distance.

Results:

Mean spherical equivalent (MSE) at study visit was 0.079 ± 0.264 in the ReSTOR group compared to 0.05 ± 0.447 in the AMO group. UCVA was 0.98 ± 0.216 in the ReSTOR group compared to 0.992 ± 0.146 in the AMO group. Best distance corrected visual acuity was almost identical at distance for both groups. The AMO group performed slightly better at intermediate distance whereas ReSTOR performed better at near. Preferred reading distance with was 42.4 in the ReSTOR group compared to 44.2 in the AMO group. Visual acuity at preferred reading distance showed no statistical difference between groups.

Conclusions:

The data indicate that “Blended vision” provided good distance, intermediate and functional near vision for almost all study subjects. “Blended vision” was well tolerated, showing similar quality of vision compared to patients receiving identical bifocal or trifocal diffractive lenses in both eyes. “Blended vision” seemed to take the “best of both designs” without sacrificing quality of vision. ReSTOR and Technis showed very similar results.

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

Back to Poster listing