0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity, reading speed, halos, or glare between the groups (p" />
Display options
Cite
Yıldırım Karabağ R, Günenç Ü, Aydın R, et al. Visual Results Following Implantation of a Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens in One Eye and a Diffractive in the Contralateral Eye. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2018;48(1):6-14doi: 10.4274/tjo.56588.
Yıldırım Karabağ, R., Günenç, �. �., Aydın, R., Arıkan, G., & Aslankara, H. (2018). Visual Results Following Implantation of a Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens in One Eye and a Diffractive in the Contralateral Eye. Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 48(1), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjo.56588
Yıldırım Karabağ, Revan, et al. "Visual Results Following Implantation of a Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens in One Eye and a Diffractive in the Contralateral Eye." Turkish journal of ophthalmology vol. 48,1 (2018): 6-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.4274/tjo.56588
Yıldırım Karabağ R, Günenç Ü, Aydın R, Arıkan G, Aslankara H. Visual Results Following Implantation of a Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens in One Eye and a Diffractive in the Contralateral Eye. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2018 Feb;48(1):6-14. doi: 10.4274/tjo.56588. Epub 2018 Feb 23. PMID: 29576891; PMCID: PMC5854863.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Turk J Ophthalmol. 2018 Feb;48(1):6-14. doi: 10.4274/tjo.56588. Epub 2018 Feb 23.

Visual Results Following Implantation of a Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens in One Eye and a Diffractive in the Contralateral Eye.

Turkish journal of ophthalmology

Revan Yıldırım Karabağ, Üzeyir Günenç, Rukiye Aydın, Gül Arıkan, Hüseyin Aslankara

Affiliations

  1. Manisa State Hospital, Ophthalmology Clinic, Manisa, Turkey.
  2. Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, ?zmir, Turkey.
  3. Medipol University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, ?stanbul, Turkey.
  4. Private Gözakademi Hospital, Ophthalmology Clinic, Denizli, Turkey.

PMID: 29576891 PMCID: PMC5854863 DOI: 10.4274/tjo.56588

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the visual outcomes in patients who underwent cataract surgery with multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation using a "mix and match" approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients (40 eyes) were involved in this prospective, nonrandomized study. Refractive multifocal IOLs (ReZoom NXG1) were implanted in patients' dominant eyes and diffractive multifocal IOLs (Tecnis ZMA00) were implanted in their non-dominant eyes. Monocular and binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity (logMAR), and contrast sensitivity levels were measured at 1, 3, and 6 months after cataract surgery. Defocus curves, reading speeds, patient satisfaction, spectacle dependence, and halo and glare symptoms were also evaluated at 6 months after the surgery. Postoperative quality of life was assessed with the Turkish version of National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25.

RESULTS: The study group comprised 8 females and 12 males with a mean age of 69.45±10.76 years (range, 31-86 years). The uncorrected distance and intermediate visual acuity levels were significantly better in the ReZoom-implanted eyes at postoperative 6 months (p=0.026 and p=0.037, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in uncorrected near visual acuity (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity, reading speed, halos, or glare between the groups (p<0.05). Mild glare/halo was reported by 40% of the subjects. The mean patient satisfaction was 95% and all patients were spectacle independent.

CONCLUSION: Mixing and matching multifocal IOLs in selected cataract patients provides excellent visual outcome, a high level of patient satisfaction, and spectacle independency.

Keywords: Mix and match; cataract; multifocal intraocular lenses

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

References

  1. J Refract Surg. 1997 Jul-Aug;13(4):388-91 - PubMed
  2. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2012 Spring;52(2):41-50 - PubMed
  3. J Refract Surg. 2008 Mar;24(3):300-5 - PubMed
  4. J Refract Surg. 2012 Feb;28(2):100-5 - PubMed
  5. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011 Jun;89(4):376-81 - PubMed
  6. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 28;8(6):e68236 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2010 Mar-Apr;20(2):370-5 - PubMed
  8. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2006 Mar;19(1):89-105, vi - PubMed
  9. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Sep;144(3):347-357 - PubMed
  10. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006 May;32(5):812-25 - PubMed
  11. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Jun 22;53(7):3920-6 - PubMed
  12. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012 Jan;23(1):40-6 - PubMed
  13. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996 May-Jun;40(6):491-9 - PubMed
  14. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005 Feb;16(1):33-7 - PubMed
  15. Ophthalmology. 2008 Sep;115(9):1508-16 - PubMed
  16. J Refract Surg. 2012 Jun;28(6):426-35 - PubMed
  17. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Jan;38(1):68-73 - PubMed
  18. J Refract Surg. 2008 Mar;24(3):215-7 - PubMed
  19. J Ophthalmol. 2010;2010:null - PubMed
  20. J Refract Surg. 2008 Mar;24(3):233-42 - PubMed
  21. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Nov;37(11):2034-42 - PubMed
  22. Ophthalmology. 2006 Apr;113(4):584.e1 - PubMed
  23. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Dec;33(12):2057-61 - PubMed
  24. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 May;37(5):842-52 - PubMed
  25. Acta Clin Croat. 2008 Dec;47(4):217-20 - PubMed
  26. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993 Jan;19(1):22-5 - PubMed
  27. Ophthalmology. 1999 Oct;106(10):1878-86 - PubMed
  28. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009 May-Jun;19(3):380-3 - PubMed
  29. J Refract Surg. 2008 Mar;24(3):223-32 - PubMed
  30. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006 Sep;32(9):1464-73 - PubMed
  31. Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 28;7:45337 - PubMed
  32. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Feb;39(2):268-78 - PubMed
  33. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jan;120(1):23-8 - PubMed
  34. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Aug;28(8):1439-43 - PubMed
  35. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Nov;39(11):1682-90 - PubMed
  36. Klin Oczna. 2011;113(7-9):209-15 - PubMed

Publication Types