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
. 2020 Sep 14;15(9):e0237728.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237728. eCollection 2020.

Influence of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses on visual field sensitivity

Affiliations

Influence of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses on visual field sensitivity

Makiko Takahashi et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the influence of EDOF IOLs, TECNIS Symfony® (Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc.), on visual field sensitivity and to compare the IOLs with other kinds of IOLs.

Methods: The subjects included the normal fellow eyes of patients who underwent the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 30-2 with Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Fast within 6 months after cataract due to glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. Each parameter of HFA was compared among eyes implanted with TENIS Symfony® (EDOF group), diffractive bifocal IOLs (bifocal group), and monofocal IOLs (monofocal group).

Results: The total of 76 eyes, including 24 eyes in the EDOF group, 26 eyes in the bifocal group, and 26 eyes in the monofocal group, were included in this study. Mean deviation (MD) of HFA was -0.24±0.58 dB in the EDOF group, -1.38±0.58 dB in the bifocal group, and 0.02±0.44 dB in the monofocal group. Foveal threshold (FT) of HFA was 35.8±1.6 dB in the EDOF group, 33.6±1.7 dB in the bifocal group, and 36.6±1.4 dB in the monofocal group. In both MD and FT, there was significant difference between the bifocal group and the others (p<0.001). There was no difference between the EDOF group and the monofocal group. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the three groups about pattern standard deviation (PSD) of HFA.

Conclusion: TECNIS Symfony® may have little influence on visual field sensitivity, whereas diffractive bifocal IOLs decrease visual field sensitivity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Three visual fields sectors.
The TD was divided into three areas (central, midperipheral, and peripheral) of the HFA.

References

    1. Gil MA, Varon C, Cardona G, Vega F, Buil JA. Comparison of far and near contrast sensitivity in patients symmetrically implanted with multifocal and monofocal IOLs. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2014;24(1):44–52. Epub 2013/07/03. 10.5301/ejo.5000335 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ji J, Huang X, Fan X, Luo M. Visual performance of Acrysof ReSTOR compared with a monofocal intraocular lens following implantation in cataract surgery. Exp Ther Med. 2013;5(1):277–81. Epub 2012/12/20. 10.3892/etm.2012.740 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kamiya K, Hayashi K, Shimizu K, Negishi K, Sato M, Bissen-Miyajima H, et al. Multifocal intraocular lens explantation: a case series of 50 eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(2):215–20 e1. Epub 2014/05/06. 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.010 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rosen E, Alio JL, Dick HB, Dell S, Slade S. Efficacy and safety of multifocal intraocular lenses following cataract and refractive lens exchange: Metaanalysis of peer-reviewed publications. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(2):310–28. Epub 2016/03/31. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.01.014 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pedrotti E, Bruni E, Bonacci E, Badalamenti R, Mastropasqua R, Marchini G. Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes With a Monofocal and an Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lens. J Refract Surg. 2016;32(7):436–42. Epub 2016/07/12. 10.3928/1081597X-20160428-06 . - DOI - PubMed