TY - JOUR
T1 - Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses for age-related cataract patients
T2 - a system review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials
AU - Cao, Kai
AU - Friedman, David S.
AU - Jin, Shanshan
AU - Yusufu, Mayinuer
AU - Zhang, Jingshang
AU - Wang, J.
AU - Hou, Simeng
AU - Zhu, Guyu
AU - Wang, Bingsong
AU - Xiong, Ying
AU - Li, Jing
AU - Li, Xiaoxia
AU - He, Hailong
AU - Chai, Lijing
AU - Wan, Xiu Hua
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by Beijing New Star of Science and Technology ( H020821380190 and Z131102000413025 ), Fund of Work Committee for Women and Children of China State Department (2014108), National Natural Science Fund ( 30471861 ), Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology Leading Program (201515).
Funding Information:
Study design and concept of the article were carried out by Xiu Hua Wan, Jinda Wang, Jingshang Zhang, and Kai Cao; database search was carried out by Kai Cao, Shanshan Jin, Simeng Hou, and Guyu Zhu; data extraction was performed by Kai Cao and Shanshan Jin; data analysis was carried out by Kai Cao; manuscript writing was carried out by Kai Cao, David S. Friedman, Xiu Hua Wan, Ying Xiong, Xiaoxia Li, Jing Li, Hailong He, and Lijing Chai; English polishing was done by Mayinuer Yusufu; manuscript revision was done by David S. Friedman. This study was funded by Beijing New Star of Science and Technology (H020821380190 and Z131102000413025), Fund of Work Committee for Women and Children of China State Department (2014108), National Natural Science Fund (30471861), Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology Leading Program (201515).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Authors
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - We compare multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs) to monofocal IOLs for visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, and adverse events using data from 21 randomized controlled trials with 2951 subjects. There was no statistical difference between uncorrected distance VA and corrected distance VA. Compared with monofocal IOLs, MFIOLs showed a better performance on uncorrected intermediate VA measured at 60 cm and uncorrected near VA; the mean differences were -0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.10, -0.03) and -0.13 (95% CI: -0.20, -0.07). Distance-corrected intermediate VA and distance-corrected near VA were measured wearing distance correction. MFIOLs performed better than monofocal IOLs on distance-corrected intermediate VA at 60 cm and distance-corrected near VA; the mean differences were -0.09 (95% CI: -0.12, -0.06) and -0.31 (95% CI: -0.43, -0.19). The contrast sensitivity of the MFIOL group was lower than that of the monofocal IOL group; mean difference was -0.06 (95% CI: -0.11, -0.02). More patients were spectacle free in the MFIOL group; the risk ratio was 2.86 (95% CI: 1.73, 4.73). More patients were troubled by glare and halos in the MFIOL group; the risk ratios were 1.91 (95% CI: 1.24, 2.95) and 3.08 (95% CI: 2.11, 4.49). We conclude that, compared with monofocal IOLs, MFIOLs give patients better near vision and intermediate vision at 60 cm, both corrected and uncorrected. Patients undergoing MFIOLs implantation are more likely to be spectacle free but have a higher risk of glare, halos, and lower contrast sensitivity.
AB - We compare multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs) to monofocal IOLs for visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, and adverse events using data from 21 randomized controlled trials with 2951 subjects. There was no statistical difference between uncorrected distance VA and corrected distance VA. Compared with monofocal IOLs, MFIOLs showed a better performance on uncorrected intermediate VA measured at 60 cm and uncorrected near VA; the mean differences were -0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.10, -0.03) and -0.13 (95% CI: -0.20, -0.07). Distance-corrected intermediate VA and distance-corrected near VA were measured wearing distance correction. MFIOLs performed better than monofocal IOLs on distance-corrected intermediate VA at 60 cm and distance-corrected near VA; the mean differences were -0.09 (95% CI: -0.12, -0.06) and -0.31 (95% CI: -0.43, -0.19). The contrast sensitivity of the MFIOL group was lower than that of the monofocal IOL group; mean difference was -0.06 (95% CI: -0.11, -0.02). More patients were spectacle free in the MFIOL group; the risk ratio was 2.86 (95% CI: 1.73, 4.73). More patients were troubled by glare and halos in the MFIOL group; the risk ratios were 1.91 (95% CI: 1.24, 2.95) and 3.08 (95% CI: 2.11, 4.49). We conclude that, compared with monofocal IOLs, MFIOLs give patients better near vision and intermediate vision at 60 cm, both corrected and uncorrected. Patients undergoing MFIOLs implantation are more likely to be spectacle free but have a higher risk of glare, halos, and lower contrast sensitivity.
KW - cataract surgery
KW - intraocular lenses
KW - meta
KW - monofocal
KW - multifocal
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065149681&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065149681&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.02.012
DO - 10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.02.012
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30849425
AN - SCOPUS:85065149681
SN - 0039-6257
VL - 64
SP - 647
EP - 658
JO - Survey of Ophthalmology
JF - Survey of Ophthalmology
IS - 5
ER -