Skip to main content


Log in

A comparative clinical study of the visual results between three types of multifocal lenses

  • Cataract
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript



To compare the patients’ visual results after bilateral implantation of the multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs): ReZoom (NXG1, Abbott Medical Optics, Abbott Park, IL, USA), Acrysof ReSTOR (SA60D3, Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA) and Tecnis MF (ZM900, Abbott Medical Optics).

Materials and methods

A prospective, nonrandomized, comparative trial of 30 patients (60 eyes) aged 46–71 (mean age 56.3 ± 5.96) divided into three equal groups with implanted bilaterally multifocal lenses: ReZoom IOL, Acrysof ReSTOR IOL and Tecnis MF IOL. The patient selection criteria included no other eye disease besides cataract, and corneal astigmatism of 1.5 diopters or less. In each case, the patients were scheduled to have standard phacoemulsification surgery with IOL implantation into the bag. The postoperative target was emmetropia. The mean follow-up was 6 months in all eyes. The following parameters were assessed/carried out: slit-lamp examination, uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected far and near visual acuity, autorefractometry, intraocular pressure, contrast sensitivity and subjective satisfaction with vision using the VF-14 survey.


After surgery, all eyes were within ±2.0D of target refraction. The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity improved in all cases. The postoperative BCDVA was better than 20/30 at the sixth month in all eyes. Six months postoperatively, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) ± standard error (SE) in the ReZoom, ReSTOR and Tecnis MF groups was 0.11 ± 0.01, 0.17 ± 0.02 and 0.14 ± 0.02 (LogMAR) respectively. All results were significantly better compared to preoperative values (p < 0.001) but did not differ between the study groups (p > 0.05). At the final visit, 75% of eyes in the ReZoom group achieved J1 (Jaeger standard) in comparison to 85% in the ReSTOR and Tecnis MF groups. Eighty percent of patients with bilaterally implanted ReSTOR and Tecnis MF IOL were spectacle-independent, in comparison to 70% with implanted ReZoom IOL. Thirty percent of patients with implanted Rezoom and Acrysof Restor IOL and 20% with implanted Tecnis multifocal IOL reported little or moderate halo and glare. The patients’ satisfaction after the procedure was excellent; the scoring on the VF-14 survey ranged from 70–100%, with an average of 93%. No patient was dissatisfied with the results of the surgery.


The implantation of tested multifocal intraocular lenses provides good near and distance visual acuity. We did not observe any statistically significant differences between the tested multifocal intraocular lenses with regard to best-corrected distance visual acuity, presence of glare and halo, as well as satisfaction with vision.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Alió JL, Tavolato M, De la Hoz F, Claramonte P, Rodríguez-Prats JL, Galal A (2004) Near vision restoration with refractive lens exchange and pseudoaccommodating and multifocal refractive and diffractive intraocular lenses: comparative clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:2494–2503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold PN (1994) Photic phenomena after phacoemulsification and posterior chamber lens implantation of various optic sizes. J Cataract Refract Surg 20:446–450

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blaylock JF, Si Z, Vickers C (2006) Visual and refractive status at different focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 32(9):1464–1473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A (1993) Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to cataract surgery and treatment of other chronic ocular conditions. Arch Ophthalmol 111(5):680–685

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Haider SI, Karia N, Kasaby H, Aggarwal RK (2007) Functional vision with bilateral ReZoom and ReSTOR intraocular lenses 6 months after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(12):2057–2061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Schwenn O, Krist R, Pheiffer N (1999) Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology 106(10):1878–1886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Haaskjold E, Allen ED, Burton RL, Webber SK, Sandvig KU, Jyrkkiö H, Leite E, Liekfeld A, Philipson B, Nyström A, Wollensak J (1998) Contrast sensitivity after implantation of diffractive bifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:653–658

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Häring G, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Weissmantel U, Kröncke W (2001) Subjective photic phenomena with refractive multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses. Results of a multicenter questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 27(2):245–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jacobi PC, Dietlein TS, Lüke C et al (2002) Multifocal intraocular lens implantation in prepresbyopic patients with unilateral cataract. Ophthalmology 109:680–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Javitt JC, Brenner MH, Curbow B, Legro MW, Street DA (1993) Outcomes of cataract surgery. Improvement in visual acuity and subjective visual function after surgery in the first, second, and both eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 111:686–691

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Javitt JC, Steinert RF (2000) Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a multinational clinical trial evaluating clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Ophthalmology 107(11):2040–2048

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Javitt JC, Wang F, Trentacost DJ, Rowe M, Tarantino N (1997) Outcomes of cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation; functional status and quality of life. Ophthalmology 104(4):589–599

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Montes-Mico R, Alio JL (2003) Distance and near contrast sensitivity function after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:703–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nida Sen H, Sarikkola AU, Uusitalo RJ, Laatikainen L (2004) Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation J Cataract Refract Surg 30(12):2483–2493

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pieh S, Weghaupt H, Skorpik C (1998) Contrast sensitivity and glare disability with diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:659–662

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosen PN, Kaplan RM, David K (2005) Measuring outcomes of cataract surgery using the Quality of Well-Being Scale and VF-14 Visual Function Index. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(2):369–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, Legro MW, Diener-West M, Bass EB, Damiano AM et al (1994) The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 112:630–638

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tielsch JM, Steinberg EP, Cassard SD, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Bass EB, Sharkey P (1995) Preoperative functional expectations and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing first eye cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 113:1312–1318

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stanislawa Gierek-Ciaciura.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gierek-Ciaciura, S., Cwalina, L., Bednarski, L. et al. A comparative clinical study of the visual results between three types of multifocal lenses. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248, 133–140 (2010).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: