Comparison of a New Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens with an Inferior Segmental Near Add and a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens

Abstract

To compare the visual acuity outcomes and ocular optical performance of eyes implanted with a multifocal refractive intraocular lens (IOL) with an inferior segmental near add or a diffractive multifocal IOL. Prospective, comparative, nonrandomized, consecutive case series. Eighty-three consecutive eyes of 45 patients (age range, 36-82 years) with cataract were divided into 2 groups: group A, 45 eyes implanted with Lentis Mplus LS-312 (Oculentis GmbH, Berlin, Germany); group B, 38 eyes implanted with diffractive IOL Acri.Lisa 366D (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). All patients underwent phacoemulsification followed by IOL implantation in the capsular bag. Distance corrected, intermediate, and near with the distance correction visual acuity outcomes and contrast sensitivity, intraocular aberrations, and defocus curve were evaluated postoperatively during a 3-month follow-up. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), corrected distance near and intermediate visual acuity (CDNVA), contrast sensitivity, intraocular aberrations, and defocus curve. A significant improvement in UDVA, CDVA, and UNVA was observed in both groups after surgery (P ≤ 0.04). Significantly better values of UNVA (P<0.01) and CDNVA (P<0.04) were found in group B. In the defocus curve, significantly better visual acuities were present in eyes in group A for intermediate vision levels of defocus (P ≤ 0.04). Significantly higher amounts of postoperative intraocular primary coma and spherical aberrations were found in group A (P<0.01). In addition, significantly better values were observed in photopic contrast sensitivity for high spatial frequencies in group A (P ≤ 0.04). The Lentis Mplus LS-312 and Acri.Lisa 366D IOLs are able to successfully restore visual function after cataract surgery. The Lentis Mplus LS-312 provided better intermediate vision and contrast sensitivity outcomes than the Acri.Lisa 366D. However, the Acri.Lisa design provided better distance and near visual outcomes and intraocular optical performance parameters.