Back to Freepaper Session

Quality of vision and reading speed with Tecnis ZMB00 diffractive multifocal lens

Session Details

Session Title: Cataract II

Session Date/Time: Saturday 15/02/2014 | 08:30-11:00

Paper Time: 08:30

Venue: Gallus Hall (Level -1)

First Author: : MarkoHawlina SLOVENIA

Co Author(s): :    Petra Schollmayer   Gregor Hawlina           

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To evaluate quality of vision with multifocal IOLs in comparison with monofocal IOLs in age matched groups without other ocular pathology.

Setting:

Eye Hospital, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Grablovičeva 46, 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia

Methods:

Vision of 14 patients implanted binocularly and 2 patients monocularly with single piece hydrophobic acrylic multifocal lenses (AMO Tecnis ZMB00) were compared with age matched controls ( mean age 72 vs. 73 yrs) with monofocal IOLs of the same manufacturer (AMO Tecnis ZCB00). Best corrected visual acuity, contrast sensitivity at best reading distance with ETDRS Adult Near Contrast Test (Richmond Products Inc., Albuquerque, USA) using and at 1 m Low Contrast Sloan Letters, (Precision Vision. La Salle, USA) , and reading speed using new standardized IReST charts (Trauzettel Klosinski et al, IOVS June 2012) was assessed in bright (100 cd/m2:L1) and dim (20 cd/m2:L2) light. Additionally, subjective satisfaction level was evaluated by a questionnaire. Follow up time was 15.4 months in multifocal and 9.3 months in monofocal group.

Results:

In all patients in multifocal group, uncorrected monocular visual acuity was 0.8 and binocular, 1.0 or better and could read J1-2 unaided. Best reading distance was 35.1 cm for multifocal and 33.9 cm for monofocal IOLs. Intermediate contrast sensitivity at 1 m was better in monofocal group . The reading speed was not significantly different between the both groups (160.6 vs 162.0 letters per minute in L1 and 159.5 vs.157.0 in L2) . Monocular implantation caused no problems to the patients. Overall mean subjective satisfaction level with multifocal lenses on a scale between 1-10 was 9.14 for distance and 9.07 (6-10) for near. 11 out of 14 patients never used glasees, 3 sometimes did. All patients would choose MF lens again. Driving satisfaction (1-10) was as follows: Day: 9,1 Twillight: 7,4 Night: 6,3. In minority of patients, halos and intermediate distance vision problems were noted, but not to disturbing degree. Haloes (1-10): Day: 0,07 Twillight: 0,5 Night: 2,7. No complications or PCO of more than 2+ (scale 1-5) or any PCO requiring YAG was noted after up to 18 months follow up. No decentration was noted and pupil size seemed not to have affected the results.

Conclusions:

The results with this type of multifocal IOLs showed very high subjective satisfaction. Although multifocal lenses were associated with slightly worse contrast sensitivity than comparable monofocal lenses in intermediate distances, this was not disabling for reading in low light conditions. Most of the patients in multifocal group drive without problems. Although few patient note halos, these are not disturbing and they would choose the same lens again. FINANCIAL INTEREST: ... research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented