Working-Age Cataract Patients: Visual Results, Reading Performance, and Quality of Life with Three Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Abstract PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes, reading performance, and quality of life (QoL) of working-age cataractous patients bilaterally implanted with 3 different diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs). DESIGN: Two-center, randomized, prospective, double-masked study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-three consecutive patients (126 eyes) seen at Ophthalmology Section, Palermo and Florence University, Italy, randomized to receive the ReSTOR SN6AD3 (Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Irvine, CA) (20 patients, group A), ReSTOR SN6AD1 (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) (21 patients, group B), or TECNIS ZMA00 (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA) (22 patients, group C) MIOL. INTERVENTION: Phacoemulsification. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: One-year follow-up differences among the 3 MIOL groups in visual acuity, reading performance by MNREAD (Minnesota Laboratory for Low-Vision Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN) reading acuity (RA), critical print size (CPS), and maximum reading speed (MRS) under mesopic and photopic conditions. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS) by Pelli-Robson test and patient satisfaction by National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument-42 (NEI RQL-42) questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean photopic uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) did not differ among groups, with a preferred reading distance greater in group B (P< 0.0005). Photopic distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) was best in group B (P = 0.001) and better in group C than in group A. Mesopic UNVA and DCNVA were worse in groups A and B compared with group C (P< 0.0005 in both cases), with better DCNVA in group B than in group A (P = 0.031). Mesopic uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and DCIVA were worst in group A, with better results in group C (P< 0.0005 and P = 0.001, respectively). Mesopic MNREAD RA was better in group C (P = 0.02), and mesopic MRS was higher in groups B and C than in group A (P = 0.002). The QoL scores by the NEI RQL-42 test exhibited no differences among groups in 9 over 13 scales. "Near vision" (P = 0.005), "symptoms" (P = 0.001), and "satisfaction with correction" scale scores (P = 0.030) were lowest in group A, and "appearance" scale score was lowest in group B (P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Newer-generation aspheric diffractive MIOLs, especially low-add hybrid apodized or full diffractive, are highly suited for working-age cataractous patients in terms of visual outcomes, reading performance, and QoL. Intrinsic optical differences, such as optimization for computer or dim-light working, or night driving, could be useful tools to customize the IOL in each single case.