We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Postoperative Evaluation of Bilateral Reading Performance With Two Intraocular Lenses: Twelve-Month Results.
Eye & Contact Lens 2018 September
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the bilateral reading performances within the first 12 months after the implantation of two intraocular lens (IOL) models.
METHODS: The patients involved in this research had bilateral phacoemulsification and implantation of the Acriva Reviol MFM 613 IOL (group 1) or AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 apodized multifocal IOL (group 2). The bilateral reading performance was evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the MNREAD acuity charts. The reading speed, critical print size, and reading acuity were measured binocularly at 40 and 60 cm. In addition, the binocular uncorrected visual acuities (far, UDVA; intermediate, UIVA; and near, UNVA) were also measured.
RESULTS: Each IOL model was implanted in 30 eyes (15 patients), and 30 patients were included in this study. Overall, there were no statistically significant postoperative differences in the mean UDVA, UIVA and mean (P>0.05). There were statistically significant postoperative differences in the mean reading acuity (group 1, 0.07±0.10 logMAR; group 2, 0.02±0.08 logMAR; P=0.019) at 40 cm. When tested at 60 cm, the reading acuity (0.13±0.10 logMAR and 0.21±0.11 logMAR, respectively; P=0.021) and critical print size (0.25±0.13 logMAR and 0.39±0.16 logMAR, respectively; P=0.005) were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2.
CONCLUSION: Both of the IOLs achieved good visual performances. However, the Acriva Reviol MFM 613 IOL performed better than the AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 at an intermediate distance, whereas the AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 provided better near distance results.
METHODS: The patients involved in this research had bilateral phacoemulsification and implantation of the Acriva Reviol MFM 613 IOL (group 1) or AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 apodized multifocal IOL (group 2). The bilateral reading performance was evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the MNREAD acuity charts. The reading speed, critical print size, and reading acuity were measured binocularly at 40 and 60 cm. In addition, the binocular uncorrected visual acuities (far, UDVA; intermediate, UIVA; and near, UNVA) were also measured.
RESULTS: Each IOL model was implanted in 30 eyes (15 patients), and 30 patients were included in this study. Overall, there were no statistically significant postoperative differences in the mean UDVA, UIVA and mean (P>0.05). There were statistically significant postoperative differences in the mean reading acuity (group 1, 0.07±0.10 logMAR; group 2, 0.02±0.08 logMAR; P=0.019) at 40 cm. When tested at 60 cm, the reading acuity (0.13±0.10 logMAR and 0.21±0.11 logMAR, respectively; P=0.021) and critical print size (0.25±0.13 logMAR and 0.39±0.16 logMAR, respectively; P=0.005) were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2.
CONCLUSION: Both of the IOLs achieved good visual performances. However, the Acriva Reviol MFM 613 IOL performed better than the AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 at an intermediate distance, whereas the AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 provided better near distance results.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app