Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 7

Comparative visual performance with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses

Authors Gundersen KG, Potvin R

Received 14 August 2013

Accepted for publication 5 September 2013

Published 7 October 2013 Volume 2013:7 Pages 1979—1985


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Kjell Gunnar Gundersen,1,* Richard Potvin2,*

Privatsykehuset Haugesund, Haugesund, Norway; 2Science in Vision, Burleson, TX, USA

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Background: To compare near, intermediate, and distance vision, and quality of vision using appropriate subjective questionnaires, when monofocal or apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) are binocularly implanted.
Methods: Patients with different binocular IOLs implanted were recruited after surgery and had their visual acuity tested, and quality of vision evaluated, at a single diagnostic visit between 3 and 8 months after second-eye surgery. Lenses tested included an aspheric monofocal and two apodized diffractive multifocal IOLs with slightly different design parameters. A total of 94 patients were evaluated.
Results: Subjects with the ReSTOR® +2.5 D IOL had better near and intermediate vision than those subjects with a monofocal IOL. Intermediate vision was similar to, and near vision slightly lower than, that of subjects with a ReSTOR® +3.0 D IOL implanted. The preferred reading distance was slightly farther out for the +2.5 D relative to the +3.0 D lens, and farthest for the monofocal. Visual acuity at the preferred reading distance was equal with the two multifocal IOLs and significantly worse with the monofocal IOL. Quality of vision measures were highest with the monofocal IOL and similar between the two multifocal IOLs.
Conclusion: The data indicate that the ReSTOR +2.5 D IOL provided good intermediate and functional near vision for patients who did not want to accept a higher potential for visual disturbances associated with the ReSTOR +3.0 D IOL, but wanted more near vision than a monofocal IOL generally provides. Quality of vision was not significantly different between the multifocal IOLs, but patient self-selection for each lens type may have been a factor.

Keywords: multifocal IOL, near vision, cataract, presbyopia

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]


Other articles by this author:

Toric intraocular lens orientation and residual refractive astigmatism: an analysis

Potvin R, Kramer BA, Hardten DR, Berdahl JP

Clinical Ophthalmology 2016, 10:1829-1836

Published Date: 20 September 2016

Retreatments after multifocal intraocular lens implantation: an analysis

Gundersen KG, Makari S, Ostenstad S, Potvin R

Clinical Ophthalmology 2016, 10:365-371

Published Date: 1 March 2016

Tear film osmolarity and dry eye disease: a review of the literature

Potvin R, Makari S, Rapuano CJ

Clinical Ophthalmology 2015, 9:2039-2047

Published Date: 2 November 2015

Cataract surgery and methods of wound closure: a review

Matossian C, Makari S, Potvin R

Clinical Ophthalmology 2015, 9:921-928

Published Date: 22 May 2015

A survey of potential and previous cataract-surgery patients: what the ophthalmologist should know

Henderson BA, Solomon K, Masket S, Potvin R, Holland EJ, Cionni R, Sandoval H

Clinical Ophthalmology 2014, 8:1595-1602

Published Date: 25 August 2014

Readers of this article also read:

Green synthesis of water-soluble nontoxic polymeric nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles

Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:1883-1889

Published Date: 16 April 2014

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

A novel preparation method for silicone oil nanoemulsions and its application for coating hair with silicone

Hu Z, Liao M, Chen Y, Cai Y, Meng L, Liu Y, Lv N, Liu Z, Yuan W

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5719-5724

Published Date: 12 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010