Clinical Outcomes of Enhanced Monofocal (Mono-EDOF) Intraocular Lenses with the Mini-Monovision Technique versus Trifocal Intraocular Lenses: A Comparative Study

Q3 Medicine
İzzet Can, Hasan Ali Bayhan
{"title":"Clinical Outcomes of Enhanced Monofocal (Mono-EDOF) Intraocular Lenses with the Mini-Monovision Technique versus Trifocal Intraocular Lenses: A Comparative Study","authors":"İzzet Can, Hasan Ali Bayhan","doi":"10.4274/tjo.galenos.2024.27805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>It was aimed to compare the clinical results of the mini-monovision technique (MMV) with enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and trifocal IOL applications and to evaluate the intereye differences in the MMV group.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective observational study evaluated the results of cataract surgeries performed on 48 eyes of 24 patients. Surgeries in Group I were performed for MMV using the RayOne EMV IOL targeting emmetropia in dominant eyes (Group IA) and -0.70 diopter (D) myopia in non-dominant eyes (Group IB), while those in Group II were performed with the AcrySof<sup>®</sup> IQ PanOptix<sup>TM</sup> TNFT00 IOL targeting emmetropia. After the surgeries, uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near distance visual acuities, contrast sensitivity measurements, and defocus curves were determined. Subjective evaluation was made with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25). The groups were compared statistically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postoperative refraction mean spherical equivalent was -0.25±0.22 D, -0.67±0.33 D, and -0.16±0.31 D in the three groups, respectively. A statistical difference was identified in favor of Group IA for uncorrected distance vision and in favor of Group IB for near vision (p<0.05). There was no difference in bilateral uncorrected visions in Groups I and II (p>0.05). While contrast sensitivity was better in Group I at all spatial frequencies (p<0.05), better vision was achieved in the defocus curve at distance in Group IA and at near in Group IB. In the binocular evaluation, it was seen that Groups I and II had similar results. In the subjective evaluation, NEI-VFQ-25 scores were 94.1±4.2/100 in Group I and 91.5±3.0/100 in Group II at 6 months (p>0.05). Photic complaints were significantly more common in Group II.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the MMV technique, it was observed that enhanced monofocal lenses provided better visual acuity at all distances and less dysphotopsia than trifocal lenses, whereas trifocal lenses were better at providing independence from glasses.</p>","PeriodicalId":23373,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/tjo.galenos.2024.27805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: It was aimed to compare the clinical results of the mini-monovision technique (MMV) with enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and trifocal IOL applications and to evaluate the intereye differences in the MMV group.

Materials and methods: This retrospective observational study evaluated the results of cataract surgeries performed on 48 eyes of 24 patients. Surgeries in Group I were performed for MMV using the RayOne EMV IOL targeting emmetropia in dominant eyes (Group IA) and -0.70 diopter (D) myopia in non-dominant eyes (Group IB), while those in Group II were performed with the AcrySof® IQ PanOptixTM TNFT00 IOL targeting emmetropia. After the surgeries, uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near distance visual acuities, contrast sensitivity measurements, and defocus curves were determined. Subjective evaluation was made with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25). The groups were compared statistically.

Results: Postoperative refraction mean spherical equivalent was -0.25±0.22 D, -0.67±0.33 D, and -0.16±0.31 D in the three groups, respectively. A statistical difference was identified in favor of Group IA for uncorrected distance vision and in favor of Group IB for near vision (p<0.05). There was no difference in bilateral uncorrected visions in Groups I and II (p>0.05). While contrast sensitivity was better in Group I at all spatial frequencies (p<0.05), better vision was achieved in the defocus curve at distance in Group IA and at near in Group IB. In the binocular evaluation, it was seen that Groups I and II had similar results. In the subjective evaluation, NEI-VFQ-25 scores were 94.1±4.2/100 in Group I and 91.5±3.0/100 in Group II at 6 months (p>0.05). Photic complaints were significantly more common in Group II.

Conclusion: With the MMV technique, it was observed that enhanced monofocal lenses provided better visual acuity at all distances and less dysphotopsia than trifocal lenses, whereas trifocal lenses were better at providing independence from glasses.

采用迷你单焦技术的增强型单焦(Mono-EDOF)眼内镜片与三焦点眼内镜片的临床效果对比研究:比较研究。
研究目的目的是比较迷你单焦点技术(MMV)与增强型单焦点人工晶体(IOL)和三焦点人工晶体应用的临床效果,并评估迷你单焦点技术组的眼内差异:这项回顾性观察研究评估了 24 名患者 48 只眼睛的白内障手术结果。I组患者使用RayOne EMV人工晶体进行MMV手术,目标为优势眼(IA组)的屈光度和非优势眼(IB组)的-0.70屈光度(D)近视;II组患者使用AcrySof® IQ PanOptixTM TNFT00人工晶体进行MMV手术,目标为屈光度。手术后,测定了未矫正和矫正的远、中、近距离视力、对比敏感度测量值和散焦曲线。采用美国国家眼科研究所视觉功能问卷(NEI VFQ-25)进行主观评估。对各组进行统计比较:结果:三组术后屈光度数平均球面等效分别为-0.25±0.22 D、-0.67±0.33 D和-0.16±0.31 D。在未校正远视力方面,IA 组和 IB 组之间存在统计学差异(P0.05)。在所有空间频率上,I 组的对比敏感度都更好(P0.05)。结论:通过 MMV 技术观察发现,与三焦点镜片相比,增强型单焦点镜片在所有距离上都能提供更好的视力和更少的视力障碍,而三焦点镜片则能更好地让患者摆脱眼镜的束缚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology
Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology (TJO) is the only scientific periodical publication of the Turkish Ophthalmological Association and has been published since January 1929. In its early years, the journal was published in Turkish and French. Although there were temporary interruptions in the publication of the journal due to various challenges, the Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology has been published continually from 1971 to the present. The target audience includes specialists and physicians in training in ophthalmology in all relevant disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信