American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 149, Issue 4 , Pages 577-584.e1, April 2010

Evaluation of the Aspheric Tecnis Multifocal Intraocular Lens: One-Year Results from the First Cohort of the Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trial

  • Mark Packer

      Affiliations

    • Drs Fine, Hoffman & Packer, LLC, Eugene, Oregon
    • Corresponding Author InformationInquiries to Mark Packer, 1550 Oak Street, Suite 5, Eugene, OR 97401-7700;
  • ,
  • Y. Ralph Chu

      Affiliations

    • Chu Vision Institute, Edina, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Kevin L. Waltz

      Affiliations

    • Eye Surgeons of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana
  • ,
  • Eric D. Donnenfeld

      Affiliations

    • Ophthalmic Consultants of Long Island, Rockville Centre, New York
  • ,
  • R. Bruce Wallace III

      Affiliations

    • Wallace Eye Surgery, Alexandria, Louisiana
  • ,
  • Kristen Featherstone

      Affiliations

    • Abbott Medical Optics, Inc, Santa Ana, California
  • ,
  • Pamela Smith

      Affiliations

    • Abbott Medical Optics, Inc, Santa Ana, California
  • ,
  • Stanley S. Bentow

      Affiliations

    • Abbott Medical Optics, Inc, Santa Ana, California
  • ,
  • Nicholas Tarantino

      Affiliations

    • Abbott Medical Optics, Inc, Santa Ana, California

Accepted 31 October 2009. published online 08 February 2010.

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the aspheric diffractive Tecnis multifocal ZM900 (TCMF) intraocular lens (IOL; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc, Santa Ana, California, USA).

Design

One-year, nonrandomized, multicenter, evaluator-masked, bilateral, parallel-group comparative clinical evaluation.

Methods

Subjects underwent bilateral implantation with the TCMF IOL or the CeeOn 911A monofocal (CEMN) IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc) according to subject preference.

Results

One-year results were available for 244 eyes of 125 TCMF IOL subjects and for 245 eyes of 123 CEMN IOL subjects. Mean distance visual acuities (VAs) were statistically and clinically equivalent between the 2 groups. Mean binocular and monocular uncorrected and distance-corrected near VAs were significantly better for the TCMF IOL versus the CEMN IOL group (P < .0001). A greater proportion of TCMF IOL versus CEMN IOL subjects achieved binocular combined VAs of 20/25 distance and 20/32 near (84.2% [96/114] vs 6.2% [7/113]; P < .0001). The TCMF IOL group had excellent depth of focus, maintaining a mean of 20/40 or better for far, intermediate, and near distances. Mean contrast sensitivity scores were lower for the TCMF IOL versus the CEMN IOL group, but the differences were not considered clinically significant. Halos and night glare were more common in the TCMF IOL versus the CEMN IOL groups. Both reading acuity (20/20 vs 20/47; P < .0007) and speed (148 vs 117 words/minute; P < .0001) were significantly better for the TCMF IOL versus the CEMN IOL group, as were the proportions of the TCMF IOL group versus the CEMN IOL group that achieved spectacle independence (84.8% vs 5.2%; P < .0001) and that functioned comfortably at near without glasses (96.4% vs 30.4%; P < .0001).

Conclusions

The TCMF IOL provided enhanced near VA, reading acuity per speed, depth of focus, and spectacle independence compared with the monofocal IOL.

 

PII: S0002-9394(09)00810-1

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.10.022

American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 149, Issue 4 , Pages 577-584.e1, April 2010