The innovations in phacoemulsification surgery and advances in surgical equipment ensure a safe extraction of the crystalline lens and implantation of intraocular lenses (IOL). As a result of developing intraocular lens technologies and changing patient demands, many multifocal, accommodative, toric, toric-multifocal, and extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs have been introduced and the original aim of restoration of far vision with implanted monocular IOLs has been evolved to an objective of improved vision at different distances with total spectacle independence. This study aimed to compare the visual acuity at different distances, contrast sensitivity, spectacle needs, photic phenomena, and quality of life parameters of patients bilaterally implanted with a low add bifocal (Tecnis ZKB00) or an EDOF IOL (Tecnis Symfony), both with planned mini-monovision to improve near vision.
The innovations in phacoemulsification surgery and advances in surgical equipment ensure a safe extraction of the crystalline lens and implantation of intraocular lenses (IOL). As a result of developing intraocular lens technologies and changing patient demands, many multifocal, accommodative, toric, toric-multifocal, and extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs have been introduced and the original aim of restoration of far vision with implanted monocular IOLs has been evolved to an objective of improved vision at different distances with total spectacle independence. This study aimed to compare the visual acuity at different distances, contrast sensitivity, spectacle needs, photic phenomena, and quality of life parameters of patients bilaterally implanted with a low add bifocal (Tecnis ZKB00) or an EDOF IOL (Tecnis Symfony), both with planned mini-monovision to improve near vision. In this regard, binocular logMAR uncorrected visual acuities (UVA), monocular defocus curves, CS with CSV 1000-E and Pelli-Robson Test (PRT), spectacle needs and quality of life parameters with NEI RQL-42 questionnaire were evaluated at postoperative 1, 3, and 6 months.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
29
This study included 30 eyes of 15 cataract patients undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of a low add (+2.75 Diopters \[D\]) bifocal (Tecnis ZKB00; Johnson and Johnson Surgical Vision Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, USA) IOL (MIOL Group) and 30 eyes of 15 patients with implantation of an EDOF (Tecnis Symfony \[ZXR00\]; Johnson and Johnson Surgical Vision Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, USA) IOL (EDOF Group).
Marmara University School of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology
Istanbul, Turkey (Türkiye)
The visual acuity
monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA; at 6 m), intermediate (UIVA, CIVA; at 60 cm), and near (UNVA, CNVA; at 40 cm) logMAR visual acuity were assessed with electronic shelled chart.Distance visual acuity was measured with LCD screen version (CSO Vision Chart, Mod CVC02, version 1.3.0, Florence, Italy) of Snellen Charts under photopic conditions (85 cd/m2). Intermediate and near visual acuities were measured and recorded with a Turkish reading chart prepared with reference to Bailey-Lovie and ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) reading charts covering international standards.13 The logMAR values of the chart designed for 35 cm distance were corrected with the formula "log10(standard distance/new distance \[cm\])" according to the distance used (40 and 60 cm).
Time frame: Preoperative
The visual acuity
monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA; at 6 m), intermediate (UIVA, CIVA; at 60 cm), and near (UNVA, CNVA; at 40 cm) logMAR visual acuity were assessed with electronic shelled chart.Distance visual acuity was measured with LCD screen version (CSO Vision Chart, Mod CVC02, version 1.3.0, Florence, Italy) of Snellen Charts under photopic conditions (85 cd/m2). Intermediate and near visual acuities were measured and recorded with a Turkish reading chart prepared with reference to Bailey-Lovie and ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) reading charts covering international standards.13 The logMAR values of the chart designed for 35 cm distance were corrected with the formula "log10(standard distance/new distance \[cm\])" according to the distance used (40 and 60 cm).
Time frame: Postoperative 1st month
The visual acuity
monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA; at 6 m), intermediate (UIVA, CIVA; at 60 cm), and near (UNVA, CNVA; at 40 cm) logMAR visual acuity were assessed with electronic shelled chart.Distance visual acuity was measured with LCD screen version (CSO Vision Chart, Mod CVC02, version 1.3.0, Florence, Italy) of Snellen Charts under photopic conditions (85 cd/m2). Intermediate and near visual acuities were measured and recorded with a Turkish reading chart prepared with reference to Bailey-Lovie and ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) reading charts covering international standards.13 The logMAR values of the chart designed for 35 cm distance were corrected with the formula "log10(standard distance/new distance \[cm\])" according to the distance used (40 and 60 cm).
Time frame: Postoperative 3rd month
The visual acuity
monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA; at 6 m), intermediate (UIVA, CIVA; at 60 cm), and near (UNVA, CNVA; at 40 cm) logMAR visual acuity were assessed with electronic shelled chart.Distance visual acuity was measured with LCD screen version (CSO Vision Chart, Mod CVC02, version 1.3.0, Florence, Italy) of Snellen Charts under photopic conditions (85 cd/m2). Intermediate and near visual acuities were measured and recorded with a Turkish reading chart prepared with reference to Bailey-Lovie and ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) reading charts covering international standards.13 The logMAR values of the chart designed for 35 cm distance were corrected with the formula "log10(standard distance/new distance \[cm\])" according to the distance used (40 and 60 cm).
Time frame: Postoperative 6th month
The contrast sensitivity (CS),
Contrast sensitivity (CS) was evaluated at 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycle per degree (cpd) spatial frequencies with CSV-1000 E test (VectorVision, Ohio, USA) under mesopic (3.5 candela \[cd\]/m2) conditions at 2.5 m with distance refractive correction. The test was conducted with and without glare, and as a glare source, two halogen lamps located either side of the test chart and producing 2.5 cd/m2 luminance at eye plane were used. CS at different spatial frequencies was compared with the physiologic CS range for normal subjects of similar age. CS was also evaluated with the LCD screen version (CSO Vision Chart, Mod CVC02, version 1.3.0, Florence, Italy) of Pelli-Robson Test (PRT) under photopic (85 cd/m2) and mesopic (3.5 cd/m2) conditions at 3 m monocularly with distance refractive correction. To the best of our knowledge, PRT CS normal values, performed under similar conditions, are not available in the literature, so the data was used only for intergroup comparisons.
Time frame: Preoperative
The contrast sensitivity (CS),
Contrast sensitivity (CS) was evaluated at 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycle per degree (cpd) spatial frequencies with CSV-1000 E test (VectorVision, Ohio, USA) under mesopic (3.5 candela \[cd\]/m2) conditions at 2.5 m with distance refractive correction. The test was conducted with and without glare, and as a glare source, two halogen lamps located either side of the test chart and producing 2.5 cd/m2 luminance at eye plane were used. CS at different spatial frequencies was compared with the physiologic CS range for normal subjects of similar age. CS was also evaluated with the LCD screen version (CSO Vision Chart, Mod CVC02, version 1.3.0, Florence, Italy) of Pelli-Robson Test (PRT) under photopic (85 cd/m2) and mesopic (3.5 cd/m2) conditions at 3 m monocularly with distance refractive correction. To the best of our knowledge, PRT CS normal values, performed under similar conditions, are not available in the literature, so the data was used only for intergroup comparisons.
Time frame: Postoperative 1st month
The contrast sensitivity (CS),
Contrast sensitivity (CS) was evaluated at 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycle per degree (cpd) spatial frequencies with CSV-1000 E test (VectorVision, Ohio, USA) under mesopic (3.5 candela \[cd\]/m2) conditions at 2.5 m with distance refractive correction. The test was conducted with and without glare, and as a glare source, two halogen lamps located either side of the test chart and producing 2.5 cd/m2 luminance at eye plane were used. CS at different spatial frequencies was compared with the physiologic CS range for normal subjects of similar age. CS was also evaluated with the LCD screen version (CSO Vision Chart, Mod CVC02, version 1.3.0, Florence, Italy) of Pelli-Robson Test (PRT) under photopic (85 cd/m2) and mesopic (3.5 cd/m2) conditions at 3 m monocularly with distance refractive correction. To the best of our knowledge, PRT CS normal values, performed under similar conditions, are not available in the literature, so the data was used only for intergroup comparisons.
Time frame: Postoperative 3rd month
The contrast sensitivity (CS),
Contrast sensitivity (CS) was evaluated at 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycle per degree (cpd) spatial frequencies with CSV-1000 E test (VectorVision, Ohio, USA) under mesopic (3.5 candela \[cd\]/m2) conditions at 2.5 m with distance refractive correction. The test was conducted with and without glare, and as a glare source, two halogen lamps located either side of the test chart and producing 2.5 cd/m2 luminance at eye plane were used. CS at different spatial frequencies was compared with the physiologic CS range for normal subjects of similar age. CS was also evaluated with the LCD screen version (CSO Vision Chart, Mod CVC02, version 1.3.0, Florence, Italy) of Pelli-Robson Test (PRT) under photopic (85 cd/m2) and mesopic (3.5 cd/m2) conditions at 3 m monocularly with distance refractive correction. To the best of our knowledge, PRT CS normal values, performed under similar conditions, are not available in the literature, so the data was used only for intergroup comparisons.
Time frame: Postoperative 6th month
Quality of life measurement
Quality of life parameters were evaluated by the validated Turkish version of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 (NEI RQL-42) questionnaire. It includes 13 subscales of quality of life parameters calculated according to a scoring key, and a "total score" can be obtained by calculating the mean value of all 42 questions.
Time frame: Preoperative
Quality of life measurement
Quality of life parameters were evaluated by the validated Turkish version of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 (NEI RQL-42) questionnaire. It includes 13 subscales of quality of life parameters calculated according to a scoring key, and a "total score" can be obtained by calculating the mean value of all 42 questions.
Time frame: Postoperative 1st month
Quality of life measurement
Quality of life parameters were evaluated by the validated Turkish version of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 (NEI RQL-42) questionnaire. It includes 13 subscales of quality of life parameters calculated according to a scoring key, and a "total score" can be obtained by calculating the mean value of all 42 questions.
Time frame: Postoperative 3rd month
Quality of life measurement
Quality of life parameters were evaluated by the validated Turkish version of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 (NEI RQL-42) questionnaire. It includes 13 subscales of quality of life parameters calculated according to a scoring key, and a "total score" can be obtained by calculating the mean value of all 42 questions.
Time frame: Postoperative 6th month
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.