ReSTOR diffractive versus Array 2 zonal-progressive multifocal intraocular lens: a contralateral comparison.

PURPOSE: To evaluate near and distance visual performance after implantation of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) (AcrySof ReSTOR) or a refractive MIOL (Array 2) in bilateral cataract surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective, comparative trial, 18 patients with bilateral cataract were selected to have lens surgery with asymmetric MIOL implantation. Eighteen eyes received ReSTOR MIOL and the 18 fellow eyes were implanted with Array 2. Five months after second lens implantation, main postoperative outcomes were uncorrected and distance corrected near visual acuities (VA). Secondary outcomes were distance VA and near acuity with power add, contrast sensitivity with and without glare (Pelly-Robson Contrast Sensitivity Chart, CSV 1000 HGT). Quality of vision was measured by comparing the severity of visual symptoms as referred to a masked interviewer.

RESULTS

Patients reported similar postoperative distance visual acuities for both eyes. ReSTORimplanted eyes showed better uncorrected and distance corrected near acuity than eyes with Array 2 (p=0.002 and p=0.003, respectively). Intermediate VA with distance correction was slightly higher with the Array 2 MIOL (p=0.058). No important difference was observed in contrast sensitivity, glare disability, and subjective rating of light sensations. Severe photic phenomena were reported only for one Array 2-implanted eye.

CONCLUSIONS

The diffractive MIOL showed better uncorrected and distance corrected near VA. The refractive Array 2 MIOL had a tendency to better value for intermediate distance. Disturbing photic phenomena were observed only in one case with the Array 2 MIOL.