May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Intermediate and Near Visual Function in Bilateral Multifocal Cataract and Lensectomy Patients Receiving ReSTOR/ReSTOR vs. ReZoom/ReSTOR
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • F.A. Bucci, Jr.
    Bucci, Wilkes–Barre, PA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  F.A. Bucci, Advanced Medical Optics, R.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Grants
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 317. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      F.A. Bucci, Jr.; Intermediate and Near Visual Function in Bilateral Multifocal Cataract and Lensectomy Patients Receiving ReSTOR/ReSTOR vs. ReZoom/ReSTOR . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):317.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To compare the near and intermed. visual function in bilateral cataract and refractive lensectomy (RL) pts receiving either ReSTOR/ReSTOR or ReZoom/ReSTOR multifocal IOLs.

Methods: : 56 pts received bilateral ReSTOR (RS) lenses (cohort I; mean f/u=14 wks). Subsequently, 30 pts received the ReZoom (RZ) lens in the non–dominant eye and the RS lens in the dominant eye (cohort II; mean f/u=7 wks). Unilateral and bilateral Jaeger near vision was measured at the pt’s best focal distance. Unilateral and bilateral intermed. vision was measured at pt’s arms length. All pts with > 0.75D of postop astig underwent AK. Incidence of subjective near and intermed. visual complaints were recorded.

Results: : A statistically signif. difference (p=.0001) was detected when comparing bilateral intermediate RS/RS=J 3.64 vs. RZ/RS=J 2.38. No signif, difference was observed at near with bilateral RS/RS=J 1.02 vs. RZ/RS=J 1.05. The comparison of unilateral RZ vs. RS eyes (cohort II; n=30) revealed a signif. difference (p=.0001) for intermed. vision (RZ=J 2.95 vs. RS=J 4.38), but no signif. difference at near (RZ=J 1.76 vs. RS=J 1.38). 13 of 56 pts (23.2%) in cohort I (RS/RS) volunteered complaints regarding intermed. vision. None of the 30 pts (0%) in cohort II (RZ/RS) volunteered complaints regarding intermed. vision. In cohort I (RS/RS), 77% (10/13) of the intermed. complaints were those receiving lensectomies. 100% (10/10) of these RL pts were < 60 y.o. age. 27% (10/37) of all the RL pts in the RS/RS cohort had voluntary intermed. complaints and all 10 were < 60 y.o. age. In the RZ/RS cohort, 19 of 30 pts (63%) 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 3.64) was significantly less than (p=.0001) the RZ/RS cohort (J 2.38). No signif. differences between the cohorts were observed for bilateral near vision. 2) Overwhelmingly greater subjective voluntary intermed. visual complaints 13/56 (23.2%) were observed in the RS/RS cohort vs. the RZ/RS cohort (0/30). 3) In the RS/RS cohort, 10/13 (37%) of the intermed. complaints were in RL pts, and 10/10 (100%) of these RL pts were < 60 y.o. age. 4) When implanting bilateral 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 under 60 y.o. age.

Keywords: presbyopia • 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.