gms | German Medical Science

102. Jahrestagung der DOG

Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft e. V.

23. bis 26.09.2004, Berlin

Functional results with two multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOL): Array® (Alcon) versus Twinset® (Acritec)

Meeting Abstract

  • corresponding author U. Mester - Department of Ophthalmology, Bundesknappschaft`s Hospital, Sulzbach/Saar
  • P. Dillinger - Department of Ophthalmology, Bundesknappschaft`s Hospital, Sulzbach/Saar
  • H. Kaymak - Department of Ophthalmology, Bundesknappschaft`s Hospital, Sulzbach/Saar
  • N. Anterist - Department of Ophthalmology, Bundesknappschaft`s Hospital, Sulzbach/Saar

Evidenzbasierte Medizin - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. 102. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. Berlin, 23.-26.09.2004. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2004. Doc04dogSO.06.09

Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/de/meetings/dog2004/04dog474.shtml

Veröffentlicht: 22. September 2004

© 2004 Mester et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielf&aauml;ltigt, verbreitet und &oauml;ffentlich zug&aauml;nglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Objective

To compare the functional outcome after bilateral implantation of the Twinset® MIOL to the Array® MIOL in patients with age-related cataract.

Methods

Within a prospective, non-randomized study 40 patients, scheduled for bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of a MIOL were assigned alternately to one of two study groups: group 1: implantation of the Array®-MIOL in both eyes, group 2: implantation of the Twinset®-MIOL consisting of a distance-dominant MIOL (first eye) and a near-dominant MIOL (second eye). After 3 months, the following investigations were performed: visual acuity (VA) including the determination of distance, near and distance-corrected near VA, the assessment of low contrast VA and contrast sensitivity testing. Visual symptoms were evaluated by a questionnaire.

Results

30 patients (Array®: 14, Twinset®: 16) could be examined 3 months postoperatively. There was no difference in distance VA, low contrast VA and contrast sensitivity between the two groups. In group 2, the distance-corrected near VA was significantly better than in group 1 (p<0,05). More than one third of patients of both groups reported halos.

Conclusions

Both MIOL provided a good distance VA while the Twinset®-MIOL lead to a better near VA without near addition. On the other hand, the diffractive and asymmetric system of the Twinset®-MIOL is not able to eliminate dysphotopsia.