title: Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens.
abstract: To compare outcomes between a new design apodized diffractive hydrophilic multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Seelens MF; study group), and a well-known apodized diffractive hydrophobic multifocal IOL (SN6AD1; control group). A comparative case series comparing refractive and visual outcomes at distance and near. Patient satisfaction with a validated questionnaire, dysphotopsia and straylight measurement scores were recorded at 3 months post-operatively. The study group comprised 48 eyes and the control group 37 eyes. At 3 months post-operatively the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was not statistically significant different between the study group and the control group (0.02 ± 0.07 logMAR [SD] vs 0.04 ± 0.09 logMAR). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was statistically significantly better with the study lens (-0.04 ± 0.05 logMAR vs -0.01 ± 0.04 logMAR (p < 0.019). There was no clinical or statistical significant difference at the 40 cm distance (0.09 ± 0.12 logMAR vs 0.08 ± 0.09 logMAR). The study group had statistically significant better uncorrected near acuity at 50 and 60 cm distances (p < 0.03 and p < 0.007, respectively). In terms of satisfaction the lenses performed equally. Halos were seen less often with the study lens. Straylight, as a parameter for visual quality, was significantly less with the study lens.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The Seelens MF performs equally as well as the well-known SN6AD1 for UCDA and CDVA. The Seelens MF performs better at intermediate distance, and seems to allow for better depth of focus, and increased visual quality. More study is needed to corroborate the last finding.
authors: Retina Total Eye Care, Driebergen, The Netherlands.
authors: Jan Willem
authors: JW
authors: van der Linden
authors: Ivanka J
authors: IJ
authors: van der Meulen
authors: Maarten P
authors: MP
authors: Mourits
authors: Ruth
authors: R
authors: Lapid-Gortzak
mesh_terms: D016022:Case-Control Studies; D003263:Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D057927:Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions; D019654:Lens Implantation, Intraocular / Q000379:methods*; D007910:Lenses, Intraocular; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014792:Visual Acuity
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Mar;34(3):441-6
references: 18299069
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Mar;37(3):441-5
references: 21333867
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31764
references: 22348128
references: J Refract Surg. 2009 Jun;25(6):485-92
references: 19603616
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Sep;144(3):358-363
references: 17651678
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Jun;34(6):957-62
references: 18499001
references: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009 May;29(3):345-50
references: 19422567
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2008 Nov;146(5):641-8
references: 18789794
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Dec;35(12):2062-9
references: 19969209
references: Ophthalmology. 2012 Mar;119(3):555-63
references: 22218147
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006 May;32(5):849-58
references: 16765805
references: J Refract Surg. 2012 Apr;28(4):253-8
references: 22496436
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Mar;34(3):368-76
references: 18299059
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 May;37(5):859-65
references: 21397457
references: Ophthalmologe. 2011 Oct;108(10):952-6
references: 21853217
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD003169
references: 17054162
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Jan;38(1):68-73
references: 22078117
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 May;38(5):840-8
references: 22520308
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Jul;154(1):20-28.e1
references: 22464368