Original Article
Objective electrophysiological contrast sensitivity with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective clinical study
Abstract
Background: To compare objective electrophysiological contrast sensitivity function (CSF) in patients implanted with either multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) or monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) by pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (prVEP) measurements.
Methods: Fourty-five cataract patients were randomly allocated to receive bilaterally: apodized diffractive-refractive Alcon Acrysof MIOL (A), full diffractive AMO Tecnis MIOL (B) or monofocal Alcon Acrysof IOL (C). Primary outcomes: 1-year differences in objective binocular CSF measured by prVEP with sinusoid grating stimuli of 6 decreasing contrast levels at 6 spatial frequencies. Secondary outcomes: psychophysical CSF measured with VCTS-6500, photopic uncorrected distance (UDVA), and mesopic and photopic uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuities (UNVA and UIVA respectively).
Results: Electrophysiological CSF curve had an inverted U-shaped morphology in all groups, with a biphasic pattern in Group B. Group A showed a lower CSF than group B at 4 and 8 cpd, and a lower value than group C at 8 cpd. Psychophysical CSF in group A exhibited a lower value at 12 cpd than group B. Mean photopic and mesopic UNVA and UIVA were worse in monofocal group compared to the multifocal groups. Mesopic UNVA and UIVA were better in group B.
Conclusions: Electrophysiological CSF behaves differently depending on the types of multifocal or monofocal IOLs. This may be related to the visual acuity under certain conditions or to IOL characteristics. This objective method might be a potential new tool to investigate on MIOL differences and on subjective device-related quality of vision.
Methods: Fourty-five cataract patients were randomly allocated to receive bilaterally: apodized diffractive-refractive Alcon Acrysof MIOL (A), full diffractive AMO Tecnis MIOL (B) or monofocal Alcon Acrysof IOL (C). Primary outcomes: 1-year differences in objective binocular CSF measured by prVEP with sinusoid grating stimuli of 6 decreasing contrast levels at 6 spatial frequencies. Secondary outcomes: psychophysical CSF measured with VCTS-6500, photopic uncorrected distance (UDVA), and mesopic and photopic uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuities (UNVA and UIVA respectively).
Results: Electrophysiological CSF curve had an inverted U-shaped morphology in all groups, with a biphasic pattern in Group B. Group A showed a lower CSF than group B at 4 and 8 cpd, and a lower value than group C at 8 cpd. Psychophysical CSF in group A exhibited a lower value at 12 cpd than group B. Mean photopic and mesopic UNVA and UIVA were worse in monofocal group compared to the multifocal groups. Mesopic UNVA and UIVA were better in group B.
Conclusions: Electrophysiological CSF behaves differently depending on the types of multifocal or monofocal IOLs. This may be related to the visual acuity under certain conditions or to IOL characteristics. This objective method might be a potential new tool to investigate on MIOL differences and on subjective device-related quality of vision.
