A comparison of visual outcomes in three different types of monofocal intraocular lenses
Author:
Corresponding Author:

Affiliation:

Clc Number:

Fund Project:

  • Article
  • |
  • Figures
  • |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference
  • |
  • Related
  • |
  • Cited by
  • |
  • Materials
  • |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    AIM: To compare the visual outcomes (distance and near) in patients opting for three different types of monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Matrix Aurium, AcrySof single piece, and AcrySof IQ lens). METHODS: The present study is a cross-sectional analysis of secondary clinical data collected from 153 eyes (52 eyes in Matrix Aurium, 48 in AcrySof single piece, and 53 in AcrySof IQ group) undergoing cataract surgery (2011-2012). We compared near vision, distance vision, distance corrected near vision in these three types of lenses on day 15 (±3) post-surgery. RESULTS: About 69% of the eyes in the Matrix Aurium group had good uncorrected distance vision post-surgery; the proportion was 48% and 57% in the AcrySof single piece and AcrySof IQ group (P=0.09). The proportion of eyes with good distance corrected near vision were 38%, 33%, and 15% in the Matrix Aurium, AcrySof single piece, and AcrySof IQ groups respectively (P=0.02). Similarly, The proportion with good “both near and distance vision” were 38%, 33%, and 15% in the Matrix Aurium, AcrySof single piece, and AcrySof IQ groups respectively (P=0.02). It was only the Matrix Aurium group which had significantly better both “distance and near vision” compared with the AcrySof IQ group (odds ratio: 5.87, 95% confidence intervals: 1.68 to 20.56). CONCLUSION: Matrix Aurium monofocal lenses may be a good option for those patients who desire to have a good near as well as distance vision post-surgery.

    Reference
    Related
    Cited by
Get Citation

Vijay Shetty, Suhas S Haldipurkar, Rujuta Gore, et al. A comparison of visual outcomes in three different types of monofocal intraocular lenses. Int J Ophthalmol, 2015,8(6):1173-1178

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:
  • PDF:
  • HTML:
  • Cited by:
Publication History
  • Received:January 28,2014
  • Revised:August 07,2015
  • Adopted:
  • Online: November 12,2015
  • Published: