A prospective evaluation of a diffractive versus a refractive designed multifocal intraocular lens.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate prospectively a diffractive (811E, Pharmacia; power add +4.0 D) versus a refractive (PA154N, Allergan; power add +3.5 D) designed multifocal lens.


METHODS
Eighty patients planned for cataract surgery without additional ocular pathologies were randomized into the diffractive or refractive group, respectively.


METHODS
A standardized no-stitch phacoemulsification with implantation of one of the two multifocal lenses was performed in each patient.


METHODS
Distance and near-visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, low contrast visual acuity, glare visual acuity, and depth of focus were measured after surgery.


RESULTS
All treated patients had best-corrected visual acuities of 20/30 or better. Near-uncorrected vision was significantly better (P < 0.0001) with the diffractive lens (mean, J1) than with the refractive lens (mean, J4). Low contrast visual acuity (61 +/- 12% versus 59 +/- 9%), glare visual acuity (39 +/- 19% versus 38 +/- 14%), and contrast sensitivity (1.48 +/- 0.08 versus 1.50 +/- 0.12) were not significantly different between the groups.


CONCLUSIONS
Both lens designs showed satisfactory functional results with advantages for the diffractive lens design.
Walkow
T
T
Department of Ophthalmology, Charité, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Germany.
Liekfeld
A
A
Anders
N
N
Pham
D T
DT
Hartmann
C
C
Wollensak
J
J
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015350:Contrast Sensitivity / Q000502:physiology; D003867:Depth Perception / Q000502:physiology; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005260:Female; D019466:Glare; D006801:Humans; D007910:Lenses, Intraocular; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D055095:Optics and Photonics; D018918:Phacoemulsification; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D014785:Vision, Ocular / Q000502:physiology*; D014792:Visual Acuity / Q000502:physiology