Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Presbyopic lens exchange (PRELEX) cataract surgery outcomes with implantation of a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens: femtosecond laser-assisted versus manual phacoemulsification

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the visual and refractive outcomes obtained with the implantation of a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL after femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and conventional lens extraction (CLE).

Methods

A total of 78 eyes of 58 patients that had undergone conventional phacoemulsification (36 eyes, CLE group) or FLACS (37 eyes, FLACS group) with the implantation of the toric multifocal IOL LU-313 MF30T (Oculentis, Germany) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Mean age was 57.0 years at the time of surgery, ranging from 44 to 69 years. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up. Likewise, contrast sensitivity was assessed at the end of the follow-up.

Results

Significant improvements were observed in both groups in uncorrected distance (UDVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA) at 1 month postoperatively (p < 0.001). Differences between groups in these parameters as well as in sphere and cylinder did not reach statistical significance during the whole follow-up (p ≥ 0.079), except for UNVA only at 12 months postoperatively (p = 0.018). Concerning corrected near visual acuity, only significant differences between groups were found preoperatively (p = 0.020). Furthermore, only a minimal but significant difference between groups was found at 12 months postoperatively in contrast sensitivity for the spatial frequency of 18 cycles/° (p = 0.029).

Conclusions

The rotationally asymmetric toric multifocal IOL LU-313 MF 30T provides good visual rehabilitation for near and distance vision after presbyopic lens extraction in eyes with preexisting astigmatism, independently whether the cataract surgery is performed with the FLACS or conventional technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rosen E, Alió JL, Dick HB, Dell S, Slade S (2016) Efficacy and safety of multifocal intraocular lenses following cataract and refractive lens exchange: metaanalysis of peer-reviewed publications. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:310–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alió JL, Grzybowski A, Romaniuk D (2014) Refractive lens exchange in modern practice: When and when not to do it? Eye Vis (Lond) 1:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Montés-Micó R, López-Gil N, Pérez-Vives C, Bonaque S, Ferrer-Blasco T (2012) In vitro optical performance of nonrotational symmetric and refractive–diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses: impact of tilt and decentration. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:1657–1663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Linz K, Attia MS, Khoramnia R, Tandogan T, Kretz FT, Auffarth GU (2016) Clinical evaluation of reading performance using the Salzburg Reading Desk with a refractive rotational asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 32:526–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Venter JA, Pelouskova M, Bull CE, Schallhorn SC, Hannan SJ (2015) Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction with a rotational asymmetric refractive intraocular lens for emmetropic presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:585–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berrow EJ, Wolffsohn JS, Bilkhu PS, Dhallu S (2014) Visual performance of a new bi-aspheric, segmented, asymmetric multifocal IOL. J Refract Surg 30:584–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Venter JA, Pelouskova M, Collins BM, Schallhorn SC, Hannan SJ (2013) Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction in 9366 eyes using a refractive segmented multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1477–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Venter J, Pelouskova M (2013) Outcomes and complications of a multifocal toric intraocular lens with a surface-embedded near section. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:859–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alió JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Piñero DP (2012) Rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOL implantation with and without capsular tension ring: refractive and visual outcomes and intraocular optical performance. J Refract Surg 28:253–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ramón ML, Piñero DP, Pérez-Cambrodí RJ (2012) Correlation of visual performance with quality of life and intraocular aberrometric profile in patients implanted with rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOLs. J Refract Surg 28:93–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Muñoz G, Albarrán-Diego C, Ferrer-Blasco T, Sakla HF, García-Lázaro S (2011) Visual function after bilateral implantation of a new zonal refractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:2043–2052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alió JL, Piñero DP, Plaza-Puche AB, Chan MJ (2011) Visual outcomes and optical performance of a monofocal intraocular lens and a new-generation multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McAlinden C, Moore JE (2011) Multifocal intraocular lens with a surface-embedded near section: short-term clinical outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:441–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kelman CD (1967) Phacoemulsification and aspiration. A new technique of cataract removal. A preliminary report. Am J Ophthalmol 64:23–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Grewal DS, Schultz T, Basti S, Dick HB (2016) Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery-current status and future directions. Surv Ophthalmol 61:103–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Szigeti A, Kránitz K, Takacs AI, Miháltz K, Knorz MC, Nagy ZZ (2012) Comparison of long-term visual outcome and IOL position with a single-optic accommodating IOL after 5.5- or 6.0-mm femtosecond laser capsulotomy. J Refract Surg 28:609–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lawless M, Bali SJ, Hodge C, Roberts TV, Chan C, Sutton G (2012) Outcomes of femtosecond laser cataract surgery with a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 28:859–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dyrda A, Martínez-Palmer A, Martín-Moral D, Rey A, Morilla A, Castilla-Martí M, Aronés-Santivañez J (2018) Clinical results of diffractive, refractive, hybrid multifocal, and monofocal intraocular lenses. J Ophthalmol 2018:8285637

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fernández J, Rodríguez-Vallejo M, Martínez J, Tauste A, Piñero DP (2018) Biometric factors associated with the visual performance of a high addition multifocal intraocular lens. Curr Eye Res 43:998–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C (2018) A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 34:507–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mojzis P, Kukuckova L, Majerova K, Ziak P, Piñero DP (2017) Postoperative visual performance with a bifocal and trifocal diffractive intraocular lens during a 1-year follow-up. Int J Ophthalmol 10:1528–1533

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mojzis P, Majerova K, Hrckova L, Piñero DP (2015) Implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens: one-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1623–1630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Conrad-Hengerer I, Al Juburi M, Schultz T, Hengerer FH, Dick HB (2013) Corneal endothelial cell loss and corneal thickness in conventional compared with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: three-month follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1307–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Abell RG, Kerr NM, Vote BJ (2013) Toward zero effective phacoemulsification time using femtosecond laser pretreatment. Ophthalmology 120:942–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abell RG, Kerr NM, Howie AR, Mustaffa Kamal MA, Allen PL, Vote BJ (2014) Effect of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery on the corneal endothelium. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:1777–1783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kranitz K, Miháltz K, Sándor GL, Takacs A, Knorz MC, Nagy ZZ (2012) Intraocular lens tilt and decentration measured by Scheimpflug camera following manual or femtosecond laser-created continuous circular capsulotomy. J Refract Surg 28:259–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Popovic M, Campos-Möller X, Schlenker MB, Ahmed II (2016) Efficacy and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with manual cataract surgery: a meta-analysis of 14567 eyes. Ophthalmology 123:2113–2126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ewe SY, Abell RG, Vote BJ (2018) Femtosecond laser-assisted versus phacoemulsification for cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation: clinical outcomes review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 29:54–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen X, Chen K, He J, Yao K (2016) Comparing the curative effects between femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification surgery: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11:e0152088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Espaillat A, Pérez O, Potvin R (2016) Clinical outcomes using standard phacoemulsification and femtosecond laser-assisted surgery with toric intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 10:555–563

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Elgohary MA, Beckingsale AB (2008) Effect of posterior capsular opacification on visual function in patients with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses. Eye (London) 22:613–619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author David P. Piñero has been supported by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of Spain within the program Ramón y Cajal, RYC-2016-20471. The rest of the authors have no received funding for performing this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eye Clinic, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Kollárova 2, 03659, Martin, Slovakia

    Peter Žiak & Juraj Halička

  2. UVEA MEDIKLINIK, s.r.o, Martin, Slovakia

    Peter Žiak, Juraj Halička & Karolína Kapitánová

  3. Premium Clinic, Teplice, Czech Republic

    Peter Mojžiš

  4. Department of Physiology, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Martin, Slovakia

    Javorka Michal

  5. Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Crta San Vicente del Raspeig s/n, 03016, San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain

    David P. Piñero

Authors
  1. Peter Žiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juraj Halička
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Mojžiš
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karolína Kapitánová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Javorka Michal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David P. Piñero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Peter Žiak or David P. Piñero.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Žiak, P., Halička, J., Mojžiš, P. et al. Presbyopic lens exchange (PRELEX) cataract surgery outcomes with implantation of a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens: femtosecond laser-assisted versus manual phacoemulsification. Int Ophthalmol 39, 2875–2882 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01135-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01135-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation