| Title |
Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s145945 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
André Lins de Medeiros, André Gustavo de Araújo Rolim, Antonio Francisco Pimenta Motta, Bruna Vieira Ventura, César Vilar, Mário Augusto Pereira Dias Chaves, Pedro Carlos Carricondo, Wilson Takashi Hida |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to compare the visual outcomes and subjective visual quality between bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens, Alcon Acrysof IQ® PanOptix® TNFT00 (group A), and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus lens, J&J Tecnis Symfony® ZXR00 with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens, J&J Vision Tecnis® ZMB00 (group B). This prospective, nonrandomized, consecutive, comparative study included the assessment of 40 eyes in 20 patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lens. Exclusion criteria were existence of any corneal, retina, or optic nerve disease, previous eye surgery, illiteracy, previous refractive surgery, high axial myopia, expected postoperative corneal astigmatism of >1.00 cylindrical diopter (D), and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Binocular visual acuity was tested in all cases. Ophthalmological evaluation included the measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), with the analysis of contrast sensitivity (CS), and visual defocus curve. Postoperative UDVA was 0.01 and -0.096 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; postoperative CDVA was -0.07 and -0.16 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; UIVA was 0.14 and 0.20 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; UNVA was -0.03 and 0.11 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively. Under photopic conditions group B had better CS at low frequencies with and without glare. Both groups promoted good quality of vision for long, intermediate, and short distances. Group B exhibited a better performance for very short distances and for intermediate and long distances ≥-1.50 D of vergence. Group A exhibited a better performance for UIVA at 60 cm and for UNVA at 40 cm. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 41% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,838,109
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#404
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,373
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#6
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.