Comparison of Post-Cataract Surgery Visual Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients Bilaterally Implanted with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

• Published in: Ophthalmology and therapy 2021-03, Vol.10 (1), p.101-113
• Main Authors: Haldipurkar, Suhas S., Shetty, Vijay, Shah, Dhruven, Haldipurkar, Tanvi, Kashelkar, Priyanka, Khatib, Zain, Sankhe, Prachi, Mane, Aalapi, Mhatre, Paresh, Setia, Maninder Singh
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Internal Medicine; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Ophthalmology; Original Research
• ISSN: 2193-8245; 2193-6528
• DOI: 10.1007/s40123-020-00321-2

Introduction The present study compared visual outcomes in eyes with bilateral implantation of two multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs)—the Eyecryl™ ACTV diffractive multifocal IOL (group 1) and AcrySof ® IQ ReSTOR ® multifocal IOL (group 2). Methods This was a prospective, two-group observational longitudinal study of 118 eyes from 59 patients conducted at Laxmi Eye Institute, Panvel, India. We evaluated the patients at 1, 3, and 6 months. We assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations, reading speed, defocus curve, stereopsis, quality of life (QOL), and adverse events in these participants. Results The median (interquartile range) best-corrected distance visual acuity was 0.18 (0, 0.18) in group 1 and 0.18 (0, 0.18) in group 2 at 1, 3, and 6 months; the difference was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.48). The binocular defocus curve in both groups showed two peaks at 0.0 to −0.5 D and at −2.5 D. The mean (95% confidence interval) critical print size was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 at low illumination (0.918 [0.905, 0.931] vs 1.154 [1.128, 1.180]; p  = 0.004). Contrast sensitivity was significantly better in group 1 under mesopic conditions but not under scotopic conditions. Though total QOL did not differ significantly between groups, the psychosocial quality of life was significantly better in group 1. About 23% of patients in group 2 reported unwanted images, compared with 0% in group 1 ( p  = 0.01). Conclusion We found that the Eyecryl and AcrySof groups were comparable for best-corrected visual acuity, photopic contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, reading parameters, stereopsis, and quality of vision. However, the Eyecryl group had better mesopic contrast and a lower proportion of unwanted images. Psychosocial quality of life was significantly better in the Eyecryl group; however, satisfaction was similar between groups. The cost of one of the lenses is less than the other. Thus, individuals with limited resources may opt for the Eyecryl™ ACTV, with similar visual outcomes.