Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct-Dec;33(4):353-362.
doi: 10.1016/j.sjopt.2019.09.007. Epub 2019 Nov 6.

Comparison of three different diffractıve multifocal intraocular lenses with a +2.5, +3.0, and +3.75 diopter additıon power

Emre Altinkurt  1 , Orkun Muftuoglu  2
Affiliations

Comparison of three different diffractıve multifocal intraocular lenses with a +2.5, +3.0, and +3.75 diopter additıon power

Emre Altinkurt et al. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2019 Oct-Dec.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the functional outcomes and astigmatic tolerability after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with a +2.5, +3.0, and +3.75 diopter (D) addition power.

Methods: This study included 122 eyes of 61 patients who had bilateral cataract extraction and implantation of diffractive aspheric multifocal acrylic IOLs with +2.5 D (+2.5 group), +3.0 D (+3.0 group), and +3.75 D (+3.75 group) addition powers. 1-year after surgery, distance corrected near (DNVA) and intermediate (DIVA) visual acuities at 32, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 cm; and contrast sensitivity measurements under photopic, mesopic and mesopic with glare conditions; spherical and astigmatic defocus testing; distance-intermediate-near vision patient satisfaction levels; spectacle dependance; patient-reported outcomes were assessed binocularly.

Results: The +2.50 D group had better DIVA than both +3.0 group and +3.75 groups at 45 cm, 50 cm, 55 cm, and 60 cm (p < 0.05). The +3.75 group had better DNVA than both +2.5 and +3.0 IOL groups at 32 cm (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in mean contrast values at all frequencies between three IOL groups (p > 0.05). The +2.50 D group showed better astigmatic tolerability than +3.00 group (at 2.00 D) and +3.75 group (at 1.50 D, and at 2.00 D) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Multifocal IOLs with +2.5 add power have better intermediate vision, but worse near vision compared to multifocal IOLs with +3.00 D and +3.75 D add power. Multifocal IOLs with +2.50 D add power tend to have better astigmatic defocus tolerability than multifocal IOLs with +3.00 D and +3.75 D add powers.

Keywords: Astigmatism; Cataract; Intraocular lens; Phacoemulsification; Presbyopia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no financial interest in any of the issues contained in this article and have no proprietary interest in the development of marketing of or materials used in this study. The manuscript was presented as a free paper at the 33rd Congress of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS) on the 8th of September, 2015 in Barcelona, Spain.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The mean distance corrected near-intermediate visual acuities at different distances.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The spherical defocus curves of the three different IOLs.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The astigmatic (against-the-rule) defocus curves of the three different IOLs.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Contrast sentitivty (CS) measurements of three different IOL groups under photopic (upper), mesopic (middle), and mesopic with glare (lower) conditions. Statistical differences (P-values, Kruskall-Wallis test) between three IOL groups for photopic CS were 3 cpd = 0.902, 6 cpd = 0.273, 12 cpd = 0.053, 18 cpd = 0.212; for mesopic CS were 3 cpd = 0.663, 6 cpd = 0.143, 12 cpd = 0.476, 18 cpd = 0.663; and for mesopic with glare CS were 3 cpd = 0.792, 6 cpd = 0.392, 12 cpd = 0.541, 18 cpd = 0.448.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The distance, intermediate, and near vision satisfaction levels of three different IOLs under three different illumination circumstances (home, daylight/street, night/twilight).
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Spectacle dependance levels of three different IOLs.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
The visual disturbance rate of three different IOLs.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cochener B., Lafuma A., Khoshnood B., Courouve L., Berdeaux G. Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-anaylsis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:45–56. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Braga-Mele R., Chang D., Dewey S. Multifocal intraocular lenses: relative indications and contraindications for implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(2):313–322. - PubMed
    1. Olson R.J., Werner L., Mamalis N., Cionni R. New intraocular lens technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(4):709–716. - PubMed
    1. Cillino G., Casuccio A., Pasti M., Bono V., Mencucci R., Cillino S. Working-age cataract patients: visual results, reading performance, and quality of life with three diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):34–44. - PubMed
    1. Artigas J.M., Menezo J.L., Peris C., Felipe A., Díaz-Llopis M. Image quality with multifocal intraocular lenses and the effect of pupil size: comparison of refractive and hybrid refractive-diffractive designs. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(12):2111–2117. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources