Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 5

Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis

Authors Béatrice Cochener, Antoine Lafuma, Babak Khoshnood, et al

Published 7 January 2011 Volume 2011:5 Pages 45—56

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S14325

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2

Béatrice Cochener1, Antoine Lafuma2, Babak Khoshnood2, Laurène Courouve2, Gilles Berdeaux3,4
1Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Brest, Brest, France; 2Cemka Eval, Bourg la Reine, France; 3Alcon France, Rueil-Malmaison, France; 4Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of different multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) based on information reported in the international literature.
Methods: All comparative clinical trials that involved implanting at least one multifocal IOL in patients with cataract or presbyopia were extracted from the literature. Clinical outcomes included uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, visual acuity, spectacle independence, and halos. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare outcomes for the different IOL types.
Results: Twenty papers were identified describing 11 monofocal IOLs and 35 multifocal IOLs (19 diffractive, including 12 ReSTOR®, 14 refractive, and two accommodative) patient cohorts. Multifocal and monofocal uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.165 (0.090–0.240) and 0.093 (0.088–0.098), respectively. Compared with monofocal IOLs, multifocal IOLs produced better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.470 [0.322–0.618] versus 0.141 [0.131–0.152]; P < 0.0001), resulting in higher spectacle independence (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 3.62 [2.90–4.52]; P < 0.0001). Compared with refractive multifocal IOLs, diffractive multifocal IOLs produced a similar uncorrected distance visual acuity (0.105 [0.098–0.111] versus 0.085 [0.029–0.140]; P ≤ 0.78, not significant) and better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.217 [0.118–0.317] versus 0.082 [0.067–0.098]; P < 0.0001) resulting in higher spectacle independence (IRR 1.75 [1.24–2.48]; P < 0.001). Compared with other multifocal IOLs, ReSTOR produced a better uncorrected distance visual acuity (0.067 [0.059–0.076] versus 0.093 [0.088–0.098]; P < 0.0001) and better uncorrected near visual acuity (0.064 [0.046–0.082] versus 0.141 [0.131–0.152]; P < 0.006), resulting in higher spectacle independence (IRR 2.06 [1.26–1.36]; P < 0.004). Halo incidence rates with different types of multifocal implants did not differ significantly.
Conclusion: Multifocal IOLs provide better uncorrected near visual acuity than monofocal IOLs, leading to less need for spectacles. Multifocal IOL design might play a role in postsurgical outcome, because better results were obtained with diffractive lenses. ReSTOR showed better uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, and higher spectacle independence rates compared with other multifocal IOLs.

Keywords: multifocal implants, meta-analysis, uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, spectacle independence, patient satisfaction

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php 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:

Identification of noncompliant glaucoma patients using Bayesian networks and the Eye-Drop Satisfaction Questionnaire

Jean-Philippe Nordmann, Christian Baudouin, Jean-Paul Renard, et al

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:1489-1495

Published Date: 8 December 2010

Measurement of treatment compliance using a medical device for glaucoma patients associated with intraocular pressure control: a survey

Jean-Philippe Nordmann, Christophe Baudouin, Jean-Paul Renard, et al

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:731-739

Published Date: 20 July 2010

Spectacle independence and subjective satisfaction of ReSTOR® multifocal intraocular lens after cataract or presbyopia surgery in two European countries

Béatrice Cochener, Luis Fernández-Vega, Jose F Alfonso, et al

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:81-89

Published Date: 25 February 2010

Daily costs of prostaglandin analogues as monotherapy or in fixed combinations with timolol, in Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden

Anders Bergström, Frédérique Maurel, Claude Le Pen, et al

Clinical Ophthalmology 2009, 3:471-481

Published Date: 16 August 2009

Cost of cataract surgery after implantation of three intraocular lenses

Catherine Boureau, Antoine Lafuma, Viviane Jeanbat, Andrew F Smith, Gilles Berdeaux

Clinical Ophthalmology 2009, 3:277-285

Published Date: 25 March 2009

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