Silicone-diffractive versus acrylic-refractive supplementary iols: visual performance and manual handling.

PURPOSE To compare visual outcome and manual handling of additional multifocal sulcus-fixated intraocular lenses (IOLs) of different materials and lens concepts. METHODS Visual outcomes after implantation of a monofocal IOL in the capsular bag followed by implantation of a sulcus-fixated multifocal IOL (MIOL) in patients with cataract were assessed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the refractive Sulcoflex 653F (Rayner Surgical GmbH, Bamberg, Germany) (35 eyes) or the diffractive MS 714 PB Diff (Dr. Schmidt Intraocularlinsen GmbH, St. Augustin, Germany) (33 eyes) additional MIOL. Three months postoperatively, visual acuity at far, intermediate, and near distance and contrast sensitivity under different conditions were evaluated. Patients with binocular implantation were asked to rate their subjective quality of vision. RESULTS No complications occurred during or after surgery. No significant differences in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity at all distances were found between groups. All eyes achieved uncorrected visual acuity of 0.3 logMAR (20/40 Snellen) or better at all distances. Contrast sensitivity was significantly better in the diffractive MS 714 PB Diff group than in the refractive Sulcoflex 653F group under all conditions. The refractive Sulcoflex 653F group experienced more photic phenomena (81%) than the diffractive MS 714 PB Diff group (25%), but the disturbances were scored as mild to moderate in most cases (93%/100%). The unfolding procedure of the acrylic Sulcoflex 653F IOL was smoother and more controllable than that of the silicone MS 714 PB Diff IOL. CONCLUSIONS Both additional MIOLs performed well in terms of far, intermediate, and near vision and enabled patients to handle almost all areas of activity without glasses.