Comparison of the Binocular Vision Quality After Implantation of Monofocal and Multifocal Intraocular Lenses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5457/ams.v40i2.174Keywords:
binocular vision, multifocal IOL, monofocal IOLAbstract
Aim. To compare binocular vision quality following unilateral implantation of either a monofocal or multifocal IOL. Methods. A prospective randomized double-blind study of postoperative binocular vision quality that included 100 patients with monocular cataract from regular operating program at the Eye Clinic UCC Tuzla. Patients were randomized into two groups of 50 patients, with implanted refractive multifocal zone-progressive IOL(AMO model NXG1) or monofocal IOL (Alcon AcySof model MA60BM). Parameters essential to evaluate the binocular vision quality were tested 6 weeks after surgery. Function of fusion was tested with a Bagolini-Maddox test with striped glasses and a cross at 6m distance. Stereo vision was tested with the Titmus stereotest with polaroid glasses at 40cm distance. Results. Unaided near visual acuity was significantly better in “multi” group, while unaided distance visual acuity was almost same in both groups. Analysis of intraocular implant influence on the basic binocular vision functions, showed that 42(84%) patients in “multi” and 36(72%) patients in “mono” group had normal finding and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. In stereo vision test, threshold of 100 arc seconds was achieved in 34(68%) in “multi” and 11(22%) patients in “mono” group. This difference was statistically significant. Conclusion. Lower levels of binocular vision are better after implantation of multifocal IOL rather than those with implanted monofocal IOL, but not statistically significant. In higher level of binocular vision there is a statistically significant improvement in binocular vision in favor of the multifocal IOL.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright transfer
The listed authors warrant that they are the authors and sole owners of the submitted manuscript. The authors also warrant that the work is original; that it has not been previously published in print or electronic format and is not under consideration by another publisher or electronic medium; that it has not been previously transferred, assigned, or otherwise encumbered; and that the authors have full power to grant such rights. With respect to the results of this work, the manuscript of this or substantially similar content will not be submitted to any other journal until the review process in the Acta Medica Salinianana has been officially completed (acceptance or rejection of the manuscript). The paper will not be withdrawn from the review process by the Acta Medica Saliniana Editorial Board until the review process is completed. The authors will comply with the requests of the Acta Medica Saliniana Editors and reviewers to improve the paper for publication. The eventual disagreements will be submitted in a written form; the authors are aware that the disagreement(s) with the Acta Medica Saliniana requests may result in the rejection of the manuscript. The authors hereby grant to the Acta Medica Saliniana the right to edit, revise, abridge, and condense the manuscript. If the manuscript is accepted for publication in the Acta Medica Saliniana, the authors hereby transfer the copyright of the paper to the Acta Medica Saliniana. The authors permit the Acta Medica Saliniana to allow third parties to copy any part of the journal without asking for permission, provided that the reference to the source is given. For papers with more than one author: All other co-authors agree to allow the corresponding author to make decisions regarding prepublication release of the information in the paper to the media, federal agencies, or both.
