1 / 12

Dr. McCulley is a consultant for Alcon Laboratories, Inc .

Comparative Global Literature Review of Visual and Optical Quality of Refractive, Diffractive, and Hybrid IOL Designs. James P. McCulley, MD Department of Ophthalmology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. Dr. McCulley is a consultant for Alcon Laboratories, Inc.

ranit
Download Presentation

Dr. McCulley is a consultant for Alcon Laboratories, Inc .

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparative Global Literature Reviewof Visual and Optical Quality of Refractive, Diffractive, and HybridIOL Designs James P. McCulley, MDDepartment of OphthalmologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Dr. McCulley is a consultant for Alcon Laboratories, Inc.

  2. Purpose & Methods PURPOSE: To investigate whether trends in superiority existfor optical characteristics and patient outcomes when making pairwise comparisons between 2 of the following 3 IOL types: refractive, diffractive, and hybrid of refractive with apodized diffractive. METHODS:Literature searches for published articles OvidSP Database(MEDLINE, EMBASE pooled), JRS, and JCRS Keyword search #2:compar* AND (multifocal OR bifocal)NOT monofocal AND intraocular lens Keyword search #1:refractive AND diffractive AND (multifocal OR bifocal) AND intraocular lens Keep only the applicablecomparative studies 23 unique journal articles *Wildcard asterisk returns “comparative,” “compared,” “comparison,” etc. All results restricted to English language

  3. Methods:Pooled Source Data 23 studies (5 bench, 18 human); total 1411 eyes • Study designs • Bilateral groups: 9 studies • Contralateral: 1 study • By eye: 8 studies • Bench: 5 studies Older IOL names or manufacturers updated to most recent.*16 Spherical SN60D3 or SA60D3, 1 Aspheric SN6AD3, 0 Aspheric SN6AD1

  4. Lens Characteristics Diffractive IOLs Refractive IOLsHybrid IOLs

  5. Results:Optical Bench Test Outcomes • 5 Studies; 5 result types; 18 pairwise superiorities • Outcomes included defocus transfer function, night driving photograph, modulation transfer function (near, distance, various pupil sizes),Strehl ratio, USAF target resolution • Top three superiorities (others only 1 superiority) • Hybrid IOLs superior over refractive IOLs, n=6 • Diffractive IOLs superior over refractive IOLs, n=5 • Hybrid IOLs superior over diffractive IOLs, n=4 Refractive vs… Hybrid vs… Diffractive vs… Winners Results were not tabulated unless a superiority was observed(ie, equivalences and similarities not counted)

  6. Results:Near Visual Acuity (≤40 cm) • 14 of 18 studies found pairwise near VA superiorities • Includes UCVA, BCVA, photopic (± glare), mesopic (± glare),defocus curve data, monocular/binocular, various contrast levels • Top three superiorities: • Diffractive IOLs superior over refractive IOLs, n=26 • Hybrid IOLs superior over refractive IOLs, n=8 • Hybrid IOLs superior over diffractive IOLs, n=5 Hybrid vs… Winners Refractive vs… Diffractive vs… Results were not tabulated unless a superiority was observed(ie, equivalences and similarities not counted)

  7. Results:Intermediate Visual Acuity (>40 cm to 3 m) • 10 of 18 studies found pairwise intermediate VA superiorities • Includes UCVA, BCVA, photopic (± glare), mesopic (± glare),defocus curve data, monocular/binocular, various contrast levels • Trends in superiority were not consistent: • In refractive vs diffractive IOLs: 7 for refractive, 5 for diffractive • In diffractive vs hybrid IOLs: 5 for diffractive, 1 for hybrid • In refractive vs hybrid IOLs: 5 for refractive, 0 for hybrid • All hybrid studies were for +4.0 D IOLs, not +3.0 D IOLs Refractive vs… Hybrid vs… Diffractive vs… Winners Results were not tabulated unless a superiority was observed(ie, equivalences and similarities not counted)

  8. Intermediate Visual Acuity:SN6AD1 versus SN6AD3 IOLs The new +3.0 D IOL (SN6AD1) uses the existing +4.0 D IOL (SN6AD3) platform Vergence, D 33 cm 40 cm 50 cm Visual acuity, logMAR Intermediate visual acuityis improved with +3.0 D IOL Near focus is farther out from the eye with +3.0 D IOL Maxwell et al. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009: 35; 2054-2061

  9. Results:Far Distance Visual Acuity (>3 m) • 4 of 18 studies found pairwise far VA superiorities • Includes UCVA, BCVA, photopic ( photopic + glare, mesopic, mesopic + glare, defocus curve data, monocular/binocular, various contrast levels • Top three superiorities: • Hybrid IOLs superior over diffractive IOLs, n=8 • Tie for second place: refractive vs diffractive, 2 superiorities each Refractive vs… Hybrid vs… Diffractive vs… Winners Results were not tabulated unless a superiority was observed(ie, equivalences and similarities not counted)

  10. Underpowered/Unclear Comparisons • Visual disturbances:superiorities found by 2 of 7 studies • Diffractive > Refractive, negative dysphotopsia (n=1) and halo (n=1) • Contrast sensitivity:superiorities found by 7 of 9 studies • Various spatial frequencies and lighting conditions • Diffractive>Refractive, n=3 • Hybrid>Refractive, n=3 • Refractive>Diffractive, n=4 • Refractive>Hybrid, n=3 • Higher-order aberrations:superiorities found by 3 of 4 studies • Included coma, spherical aberration, various pupil sizes • Hybrid>Refractive, n=12 results • Diffractive>Hybrid, n=8 results • Reading acuity and speed:superiorities found by 3 of 3 studies • Various lighting conditions, distances, correction • Top acuity superiority: Diffractive > Refractive (n =15 results) • Top speed superiority: Diffractive > Refractive (n=9 results)

  11. Summary Based on the number of results from articles comparing one type of multifocal IOL to another, the following possible trends were observed: • For published optical quality results, • Hybrid > Refractive • Diffractive > Refractive • For published visual acuity results, • Near vision • Diffractive > Refractive • Hybrid > Diffractive • Hybrid > Refractive • Intermediate vision • Refractivevs diffractive: differences not clear • Refractiveanddiffractive superior tohybrid (+4.0 D model),but SN6AD1 (+3.0 D model) improves intermediate visual acuity • Distance vision • Hybrid > Diffractive • Tie for second place:RefractivevsDiffractive

  12. References(Database for Literature Review) • Alfonso et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:1848-1854. • Alio et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:2494-2503. • Artigas et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:2111-2117. • Chang. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:934-941. • Chiam et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:2057-2061. • Choi et al. J Refract Surg 2008;24:218-222. • Gunenc et al. J Refract Surg 2008;24:233-242. • Hutz et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:2015-2021. • Hutz et al. J Refract Surg 2008;24:251-256. • Maxwell et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:166-171. • Mester et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:1033-1040. • Ortiz et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:755-762. • Palmer et al. J Refract Surg 2008;24:257-264. • Pepose et al. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;144:347-357. • Pieh et al. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:23-28. • Renieri et al. Eur J Ophthalmol 2007;17:720-728. • Richter-Mueksch et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:1957-1963. • Schmidinger et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1650-1656. • Schwiegerling. J Refract Surg 2007;23:965-971. • Toto et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:1419-1425. • Walkow et al. Ophthalmology 1997;104:1380-1386. • Weghaupt et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998;24:663-665. • Zelichowska et al. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:2036-2042.

More Related