Clinical evaluation of two multifocal intraocular lens implantation patterns.

AIM

To evaluate the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction of two multifocal intraocular lens implantation patterns, with the decision between the two patterns being guided by the patients' choice of visual zones that best suited their lifestyle, or lifestyle zones.

METHODS

This is a prospective non-randomized comparative study. The lifestyle zones of 32 consecutive age-related cataract patients (64 eyes) were investigated individually to guide the surgical decision between two multifocal intraocular lens implantation patterns. The first group (MIX) received a combined implantation of a ReZoom NXG1 lens in the dominant eye and a Tecnis ZM900 lens in the other eye. The second group (MATCH) received bilateral ReZoom NXG1 lenses. One year postoperatively, the patients were assessed for binocular uncorrected visual acuity, reading visual acuity, reading speed and depth of focus under different luminance and were surveyed for visual disturbances, satisfaction and complete spectacle independence.

RESULTS

According to the determination of lifestyle zones, 18 and 14 patients were included in the MIX and MATCH groups, respectively. One year postoperatively, each of the patients exhibited positive visual outcomes and lifestyle satisfaction, although there were still some differences between the two groups. Generally, patients in the MATCH group had better distance visual acuity than those in the MIX group. In contrast, patients in the MIX group had better near visual acuity, better reading acuity and better reading speed than those in the MATCH group. Between the two groups, there was no clear difference in intermediate visual acuity, and the depths of focus between the two groups were approximately equal. The results of the mean NEI-RQL-42 questionnaire score, overall satisfaction, and complete spectacle independence did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Different multifocal intraocular lenses implantation patterns can have differing advantages and disadvantages; however, the best results with respect to visual outcome and patient satisfaction can be achieved by taking individual lifestyle zones into account.