May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Bilateral Multifocal Cataract and Lensectomy Patients Receiving ReZoom/ReSTOR vs. ReSTOR/ReSTOR - Long Term Follow-Up
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • R. E. Evans
    Bucci Laser Vision Institute, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania
  • F. A. Bucci, Jr.
    Bucci Laser Vision Institute, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships R.E. Evans, AMO, R; F.A. Bucci, AMO, R.
  • Footnotes
    Support None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 3121. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      R. E. Evans, F. A. Bucci, Jr.; Bilateral Multifocal Cataract and Lensectomy Patients Receiving ReZoom/ReSTOR vs. ReSTOR/ReSTOR - Long Term Follow-Up. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):3121. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose:: To report long term follow up of near and intermed. visual function in bilateral cataract and refractive lensectomy (RL) pts receiving either ReZoom/ReSTOR or ReSTOR/ReSTOR multifocal IOLs.

Methods:: 55 pts received bilateral ReSTOR (RS) lenses (mean f/u=16 mos). Subsequently, 110 pts received (38% cataract/62% RL) the ReZoom (RZ) lens in the dominant eye and the RS lens in the non dominant eye (mean f/u=7 mos). Unilat. and bilat. Jaeger near vision was measured at the pt’s best focal distance. Unilat. and bilat. intermed. vision was measured at pt’s arms length. The incidence of subjective near and intermed. visual complaints was recorded.

Results:: A statistically signif. difference (p=.0001) was detected when comparing bilat intermed. RS/RS=J 3.77 vs. RZ/RS=J 2.41. No signif. difference was observed at near with bilat. RS/RS=J 1.00 vs. RZ/RS=J 1.05. The comparison of unilat. RZ vs. RS eyes (n=110) revealed a signif. difference (p=.0001) for intermed. vision (RZ=J 3.10 vs. RS=J 4.30), but no signif. difference at near (RZ=J 1.97 vs. RS=J 1.71). 17 of 55 pts (30.9%) with RS/RS volunteered complaints regarding intermed. vision. None of the 110 pts (0%) with RZ/RS volunteered complaints regarding intermed. vision. In (RS/RS), 70.6% (12/17) of the intermed. complaints were those receiving RL. 84.6% (11/13) of these RL pts were ≤ 60 y.o. age. In the RZ/RS cohort, 64 of 110 pts (58.2%) were RL pts with a mean age of 55 years and no voluntary intermed. visual complaints were observed.

Conclusions:: 1)The objective bilateral intermed. visual function of the RS/RS cohort (J 3.77) was significantly less than (p=.0001) the RZ/RS cohort (J 2.41). No signif. differences between the cohorts were observed for bilateral near vision. 2) Overwhelmingly greater subjective voluntary intermed. visual complaints 17/55 (30.9%) were observed in RS/RS vs. RZ/RS (0/110). 3) In the RS/RS cohort, 12/17 (70.6%) of the intermed. complaints were in RL pts, and 11/13 (84.6%) of these RL pts were ≤ 60 y.o. age. 4) When implanting bilat. multifocal implants, the combination of RZ/RS appears to effectively mitigate voluntary intermed. vision complaints that were previously observed in RS/RS pts. 5) The relative risk of intermed. visual complaints in pts receiving bilateral ReSTOR lenses appears to increase with decreasing age, and is greatest in RL pts < 60 y.o.

Keywords: refractive surgery: other technologies  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×