POST OPERATIVE VISUAL OUTCOME IN MULTIFOCAL VERSUS MONOFOCAL IOL
Abstract
Purpose: To study and compare the postoperative visual outcome and contrast sensitivity in multifocal versus monofocal IOL
Method
Study Design: Randomized control trial; Study period: 12 months; Sample size: 60 eyes of 60 patients
The study included 33 males and 27 females distributed randomly among the two study groups. There was no statistical difference between two groups in term of sex distribution of patients. The patient belonged to the age group of 56 to 65 years of age. The patients were divided into groups according to the age. One group of patients ranged from 56-60 years and the other group ranged from 61 to 65 years. Thus there is no significant difference between the two groups in term of age distribution. (BCDVA) best corrected distance visual acuity of more than 6/9 was noted in 28/30 patient with multifocal and 29/30 patient with monofocal. There was no statistically significant difference between the two IOL’S. (UCNVA) Uncorrected near visual acuity of more than N8 was noted in 25 patients with multifocal IOL and only 1 patient with monofocal IOL. Thus there was a statistically significant difference between the two IOL with multifocal providing a better near visual acuity. Both the groups exhibited similar levels of contrast sensitivity at higher or moderate levels of contrast sensitivity (100% - 34%) but at lower level of contrast sensitivity (34.2%-5%) there was significant difference in the two groups with monofocal IOL being better than the multifocal IOL.
Conclusion
In our study we found that patient with multifocal IOL obtained same UCDVA and BCDVA as the monofocal IOL
The near visual acuity was significantly better in the multifocal group than the monofocal group.
No significant difference in contrast sensitivity between the two groups.
Downloads
References
2. Haaskjold E, Allen ED, Burton RL, Webber SK, Sandvig KU, Jyrkkio H, et al. Contrast sensitivity after implantation of diffractive bifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 1998; 24(5):653–8. Pharmacia, Upjohn Ltd. Unpublished data 1995.
3. Jusufovic V, Sarajlic D, Zvornicanin J, Musanovic Z, Halilbasic M. Comparison of the binocular vision quality after implantation of monofocal and multifocal
intraocular lenses. Acta Medica Saliniana 2011; 40(2):63–8.
4. Leyland M, Langan L, Goolfee F, Lee N, Bloom P. Prospective randomised doublemasked trial of bilateral multifocal, bifocal or monofocal intraocular lenses. Eye 2002;16(4):481–90.
5. Rossetti L, Carraro F, Rovati M, Orzalesi N: Performance of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in extracapsular cataract surgery. Journal of Cataract and
Refractive Surgery 1994;20(2):124-128
6. Sen HN, Sarikkola AU, Uusitalo RJ, Laatikainen L: Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2004;30(12):2483-2493
7. Ramanjit Sihots, Radhik Tandon: Parsons’ Diseases of the Eye. ButterworthHeinemann, 21st edition. 70.
8. Percival SP, Setty S: Prospectively randomized trial comparing the pseudoaccommodation of the AMO ARRAY multifocal lens and a monofocal lens. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 1993; 19(1):26-31.
9. Kamlesh M, Dadeya S, Kaushik S: Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;36(4):197-201.
10. Birgit Arens, Nora Freudenthaler, ClausDieter Quentin: Binocular function after bilateral implantation of monofocal and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refractive Surg. 1999; 25: 399-404.
11. Steinert RF, Aker BL, Trentacost DJ: A prospective comparative study of the AMO ARRAY zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 1999, 106:1243-1255.
12. Salvatore Cillino, Alessandra Casuccio, Francesco Di Pace Raffaella Morreale, Francesco Pillitteri, Giovanni Cillino, Gaetano Lodato : One year outcomes with
multifocal lenses. American Academy of Ophthalmol 2008; 115(9): 1508-1516.
