Abstract:Objective To evaluate visual quality and pseudoaccommodation in patients after the implantation of an apodized diffractive aspherical multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL). Methods This was a prospective case series study. Thirty-five patients (50 eyes)who had agreed to undergo phacoemulsification and accept IOL implants were selected for the study. Any other eye disease or systemic disease was criteria for exclusion. The eyes were divided into 2 groups according to the type of IOL implanted. One group was implanted with apodized diffractive aspherical MIOL (AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD3) and the other group was implanted with apodized diffractive MIOL (AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3). Twenty-five eyes of 17 patients were implanted with SN6AD3 and 25 eyes of 18 patients were implanted with SN60D3. All patients were assessed 3 months postoperatively for aberrations of the crystalline lens, the modulation transfer function, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), pseudoaccommodation,contrast sensitivity and the rate of eyeglass removal for near. Data were compared using an independent samples t test and x2 test. Results UCDVA, BCDVA, UCNVA and DCNVA in the SN6AD3 group were not statistically different from the SN60D3 group (P＞0.05). There were statistical differences between the two groups when spherical, 4th-order higher aberrations and total higher-order aberrations were compared. The SN6AD3 group had lower aberrations than the SN60D3group under 3 and 5 mm pupils. There were statistical differences in the MTF for spatial frequencies of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 c/d. For these spatial frequencies, the SN6AD3 group had higher scores than the SN60D3 group. Accommodative range was (0.925±0.549)D in the SN6AD3 group and (0.964 ±0.582)D in the SN60D3 group. There were no statistically significant difference in accommodative range between the SN6AD3 and SN60D3 groups (t=0.217, P＞0.05). There were statistical differences in contrast sensitivity for spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 c/d. At these spatial frequencies, the SN6AD3 group had better contrast sensitivity than the SN60D3 group. The rate of eyeglass removal for near for the two MIOL groups was 80% and 72% (x2=0.439, P=0.508).Conclusion The AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive aspherical MIOL provides excellent distance and near visual acuity, pseudoaccommodation and higher contrast sensitivity.

Visual performance of Acrysof ReSTOR compared with a monofocal intraocular lens following implantation in cataract surgery.

Visual and refractive status at different focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens

Clinical Observations of Monofocal Intraocular Lens and Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Cataract Surgery

Evaluation of the Clinical Effect of Acrysof ReSTOR Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Implantation

A Study of the Amplitude of Pseudoaccommodation in Eyes after Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Clinical application of Acry Sof Restor muitifocal intraocuiar lens

Preliminary Clinical Study of the Apodized Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens

[Subjective and objective outcome following implantation of the apodized diffractive AcrySof ReSTOR]

Visual function after monocular implantation of apodized diffractive multifocal or single-piece monofocal intraocular lens Randomized prospective comparison

Visual function after aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses implantation

Wavefront aberration and accommodation power in eyes with aspheric multifocal intraocular lens implantation

[Long-term visual outcome comparison of bilateral implantation of apodised diffractive versus progressive multizonal refractive multifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction]

Comparison of Visual Function and Vision-Related Quality of Life after Restor Multi-Focal Intraocular Lens +3.00 D to +4.00 D

[Comparison of Contrast Sensitivity and Wavefront Analysis after Implantation of AcrySof IQ Aspherical Intraocular Lens].

Visual Performance with Accommodating and Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.

Corrected and uncorrected near and distance vision with ReSTOR compared to monofocal intraocular lens implantation after cataract surgery: a pooled analysis

Clinical study of Acrysof IQ aspheric intraocular lenses: Clinical study of aspheric intraocular lenses

Contrast Sensitivities of RESTOR Multifocal Intraocular Lens after Phacoe Mulsification

Quality of Vision in Patients with Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Visual Function after Bilateral Implantation of Apodized Diffractive Multifocal IOL with a +3.0 or +4.0 D Addition.

Visual outcomes and optical quality after implantation of a diffractive multifocal toric intraocular lens