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.


Diffractive multifocal IOLs: a comparative study of Finevision versus ReSTOR 2.5 and 3.0D

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

Session Details

Session Title: Pseudophakic IOLs/ Multifocals II

Session Date/Time: Tuesday 16/09/2014 | 08:00-10:30

Paper Time: 08:12

Venue: Boulevard A

First Author: : K.Gundersen NORWAY

Co Author(s): :    R. Potvin              

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To clinically evaluate Finevision Trifocal MFIOL to AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® 2.5 and 3.0D implantation.

Setting:

Single surgeon clinic

Methods:

Post­operative visual acuity and quality of vision data were recorded from patients who had previous bilateral implantation of AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +2.5D, AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +3.0D or Finevision Trifocal lenses. Uncorrected and best distance­corrected visual acuity at distance, intermediate and near, as well as low contrast acuity at 4m, was measured. AcrySof® IQ monofocal lenses were used as control IOL`s in the study. Each patient’s preferred reading distance was recorded, along with the visual acuity at that distance. Quality of vision metrics were also collected.

Results:

Data from 96 patients were collected, 32 from each group. Refractive outcomes showed excellent predictability for both ReSTOR and Finevision eyes. Uncorrected binocular distance visual acuity was better than 0.1 logMAR (0.8 decimal acuity) in 95% of patients, with no statistically difference between groups. Finevision eyes showed the best distance­ corrected VA at both intermediate (60 cm) and at near (40 cm) compared to AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +2.5D and AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +3.0D near. Binocular distance low contrast acuity was similar between Finevision and AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +2.5D patients, whereas AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +3.0D eyes performed slightly worse. Preferred reading distance was similar between Finevision and AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +3.0D eyes (approx. 42cm), compared to approx. 50cm in AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +2.5D eyes. Visual acuity at preferred reading distance showed no statistically difference between groups. Quality of vision was significantly better for Finevision eyes compared to AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +3.0D eyes but not significantly better than AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +2.5D eyes.

Conclusions:

Finevision eyes compared favorably to both AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +2.5D and AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +3.0D at both intermediate and near reading tests. Finevision eyes showed better Quality of vision compared to AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +3.0D eyes.

Financial Interest:

NONE

Back to previous