Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis
Objective. To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs. Methods. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4728258 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841524495044575232 |
|---|---|
| author | Zequan Xu Wenzhe Li Lianqun Wu Shuang Xue Xu Chen Qiang Wu |
| author_facet | Zequan Xu Wenzhe Li Lianqun Wu Shuang Xue Xu Chen Qiang Wu |
| author_sort | Zequan Xu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective. To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs. Methods. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up to February 2017 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies. Main outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), MTF, Strehl ratio, and residual sphere and cylinder. Results. Mplus provided significantly worse UDVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.13, P=0.008), but significantly better UIVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P<0.00001), spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.12, P<0.0001), and accommodating IOLs (WMD: −0.21, P<0.00001). Mplus provided significantly worse UNVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.07, P<0.00001), but significantly better UNVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P<0.00001). Mplus resulted in significantly higher HOAs than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.38, P<0.00001) and spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.51, P=0.0004). Mplus provided a significantly lower MTF cut-off and Strehl ratio than other type of IOLs. Conclusion. The Mplus IOLs perform best regarding intermediate visual acuity whereas they lack in distance visual acuity compared to monofocal IOLs and near visual acuity compared to bifocal IOLs. These results may be due to structure of Mplus IOLs resulting in higher-order aberrations. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-d93df990430c476b8b8570e24f14a989 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-004X 2090-0058 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-d93df990430c476b8b8570e24f14a9892025-02-03T05:53:06ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582018-01-01201810.1155/2018/47282584728258Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-AnalysisZequan Xu0Wenzhe Li1Lianqun Wu2Shuang Xue3Xu Chen4Qiang Wu5Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, No. 600, Yishan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai 200233, ChinaClinical Medical College, Tianjin Medical University, No. 176, Xueyuan Road, Dagang District, Tianjin 100270, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003 Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, People’s Hospital of Hegang, No. 1, Dianxin Road, Gongnong District, Hegang 154100, Heilongjiang, ChinaDepartment of Cataract and Glaucoma, Shanghai Aier Eye Hospital, No. 1286, Hongqiao Road, Shanghai 200336, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, No. 600, Yishan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai 200233, ChinaObjective. To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs. Methods. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up to February 2017 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies. Main outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), MTF, Strehl ratio, and residual sphere and cylinder. Results. Mplus provided significantly worse UDVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.13, P=0.008), but significantly better UIVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P<0.00001), spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.12, P<0.0001), and accommodating IOLs (WMD: −0.21, P<0.00001). Mplus provided significantly worse UNVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.07, P<0.00001), but significantly better UNVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P<0.00001). Mplus resulted in significantly higher HOAs than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.38, P<0.00001) and spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.51, P=0.0004). Mplus provided a significantly lower MTF cut-off and Strehl ratio than other type of IOLs. Conclusion. The Mplus IOLs perform best regarding intermediate visual acuity whereas they lack in distance visual acuity compared to monofocal IOLs and near visual acuity compared to bifocal IOLs. These results may be due to structure of Mplus IOLs resulting in higher-order aberrations.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4728258 |
| spellingShingle | Zequan Xu Wenzhe Li Lianqun Wu Shuang Xue Xu Chen Qiang Wu Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis Journal of Ophthalmology |
| title | Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_full | Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_short | Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_sort | comparison of the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal iols with other types of iols a meta analysis |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4728258 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zequanxu comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis AT wenzheli comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis AT lianqunwu comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis AT shuangxue comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis AT xuchen comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis AT qiangwu comparisonoftheclinicalperformanceofrefractiverotationallyasymmetricmultifocaliolswithothertypesofiolsametaanalysis |