Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Extended Depth of Focus Versus Monofocal IOLs: Objective and Subjective Visual Outcomes
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Extended Depth of Focus Versus Monofocal IOLs: Objective and Subjective Visual Outcomes
Do you wish to request the book?
Extended Depth of Focus Versus Monofocal IOLs: Objective and Subjective Visual Outcomes
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Extended Depth of Focus Versus Monofocal IOLs: Objective and Subjective Visual Outcomes
2020
Overview
To evaluate and compare the objective and subjective outcomes between bilateral implantation of the extended depth of focus (EDOF) Mini Well intraocular lens (IOL) and the aspheric monofocal Mini-4-Ready IOL (both SIFI S.p.A., Catania, Italy).
This prospective comparative study included 25 patients (50 eyes) bilaterally implanted with an EDOF Mini Well IOL (EDOF group) and 25 patients (50 eyes) bilaterally implanted with a Mini-4-Ready IOL (monofocal group). Three-month follow-up data included corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity at 4 m and 80, 67, and 40 cm. Defocus curves, subjective and objective contrast sensitivity, and objective optical quality (modulation transfer function cutoff and Strehl ratio calculated with Optical Quality Analysis System [OQAS]; Visiometrics SL, Terrassa, Spain), halometry, and reading performance were measured. Subjective visual quality was evaluated based on National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 (NEI RQL-42) scores.
Postoperative uncorrected and corrected monocular and binocular intermediate and near visual acuity was significantly better in the EDOF group (P < .001). No differences were observed for distance visual acuity (P ⩾ .312). Defocus curve outcomes for myopic values were better in the EDOF group (P < .001). No significant differences were found in hyperopic (obtained in steps of +0.50 diopters [D] from emmetropia to 1.50 D) values (P ⩾ .095), contrast sensitivity curves (P ⩾ .087), or OQAS outcomes (P ⩾ .138). Halometric values were significantly better in the monofocal group (P < .05). There was a correlation between mean keratometry values and intermediate/near visual acuity. Significantly better NEI RQL-42 subscale scores for near vision, far vision, activity limitations, glare, dependence on correction, and suboptimal correction were noted in the EDOF group (P < .05).
Intermediate and near visual acuity was better after EDOF IOL than after aspheric monofocal IOL implantation while maintaining similar levels of visual quality, except for halo perception. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(4):214-222.].
Publisher
Slack, Inc,SLACK INCORPORATED
