Differences in contrast sensitivity between monofocal, multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses: long-term results
Article first published online: 3 NOV 2010
© 2010 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology © 2010 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists
Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology
Volume 38, Issue 8, pages 768–777, November 2010
How to Cite
Mesci, C., Erbil, H. H., Olgun, A., Aydin, N., Candemir, B. and Akçakaya, A. A. (2010), Differences in contrast sensitivity between monofocal, multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses: long-term results. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 38: 768–777. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02357.x
- Issue published online: 3 NOV 2010
- Article first published online: 3 NOV 2010
- Received 8 February 2010; accepted 14 May 2010.
- contrast sensitivity;
- intraocular lens;
Background: To evaluate long-term contrast sensitivity (CS) and visual acuity following implantation of monofocal, accommodating, refractive and diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in patients with unilateral cataract
Methods: In this prospective non-randomized clinical trial, 87 patients with unilateral cataract were enrolled in four groups for phacoemulsification and IOL implantation in Ophthalmology Department of Goztepe Training and Research Hospital. Twenty-four patients had monofocal (Alcon Acrysof; group 1), 21 patients accommodating (Human Optics 1CU; group 2), 22 patients diffractive multifocal (Tecnis ZM900; group 3) and 20 patients refractive multifocal (AMO Rezoom; group 4) IOL implantations. Ages of patients were between 40 and 70. Parameters analysed at the 18th postoperative month were subjective refractions, monocular and binocular distance and near photopic CSs, visual acuities.
Results: Near visual acuities were statistically better in group 3 than the other groups (P < 0.05). At low spatial frequencies, mean monocular distance CSs of group 1 and mean monocular near CSs of groups 1 and 2 were statistically higher than those of group 4 (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between binocular CSs of group 4 and the other groups at low spatial frequencies. At high spatial frequencies, monocular and binocular CSs of groups 1 and 2 were statistically higher than those of groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.05). Near CSs was better in group 3 than group 4.
Conclusions: In patients with unilateral cataract, monofocal, accommodating and partially diffractive multifocal IOL provided higher CS scores when compared with refractive multifocal IOL and in multifocal IOL groups binocular CSs were better than monocular CSs when compared with other groups.