Purchase this article with an account.
S Richter-Mueksch, H Weghaupt, C Skorpik, M Velikay- Parel, E Stifter, W Radner; Different Reading Ability With Diffractive And Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):447.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: To evaluate the reading performance of a diffractive (811E, Pharmacia) and a refractive (SA40N, Allergan) multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in comparison to a monofocal IOL (811C, Pharmacia) with respect to reading acuity, reading speed based on print size, maximal reading speed, reading distance and critical print size. Method: 120 pseudophakic eyes of 70 patients (40 eyes in each group) were studied. Age, gender and best-corrected LogMAR visual acuity were recorded. Reading acuity and speed were tested monocularly. Reading acuity was determined in LogRAD (= reading equivalent of LogMAR). Patients with multifocal IOLs read with best distance correction, patients with the monofocal IOL with an addition of +3 diopters. Results: The patients’ age, mean spherical equivalent, cylinder and best-corrected distance visual acuity were comparable in the three groups. The mean reading acuity was LogRAD 0.17 ±0.18 for the 811E-group, (=94.0% of LogMAR), LogRAD 0.31 ±0.13 for the SA40N-group (=73.2% of LogMAR) and LogRAD 0.24±0.22 for the 811C-group (=94.1% of LogMAR), showing a statistically significantly lower reading acuity for the SA40N group when compared to the 811E and 811C groups. The best reading distance was 30 cm for the 811E -group and 40 cm for the SA40N group. The mean maximum reading speeds were comparable: 187.5 ±26.1(811E), 171.0 ±21.1 (SA40N) and 179.4 ±21.6 (811C) words per minute. Both the reading speed, ranging from LogRAD 0.7 to 0.3, and the critical print size (CPS) for the SA40N group were significantly worse than those for the 811E and 811C groups. In addition, the mean CPS for the 811E group was significantly higher (worse) than that for the 811C group. Conclusion: Reading performance was found to be acceptable for both multifocal IOL patients, with the diffractive multifocal IOL showing a clear advantage.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only