Background/Aim: To evaluate distance and near vision-related benefit after implantation of ReSTOR® multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) following cataract surgery. Methods: Two prospective open-labeled nonrandomized studies were pooled. Patients’ perception of benefit was assessed with the TyPE, administered at baseline and after each eye surgery. Results: A total of 499 patients received ReSTOR IOLs, and 173 received monofocal IOLs. The distance vision of monofocal and ReSTOR patients improved equally with and without glasses. A greater improvement in near vision without glasses was reported by ReSTOR-implanted patients as early as after the 1st eye surgery (p < 0.0001). More ReSTOR patients than monofocal patients reported independence from glasses after the 1st eye surgery (64 vs. 52%; p = 0.0002). This difference had increased after the 2nd eye surgery (85 vs. 51%; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The improvement in near vision without glasses was significantly more evident in ReSTOR patients, allowing the majority of them to be free of glasses.

1.
Simpson MJ: The diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. Eur J Implant Refract Surg 1989;1:115–121.
2.
Javitt JC, Wang F, Trentacost DJ, Rowe M, Tarantino N: Outcomes of cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: functional status and quality of life. Ophthalmology 1997;104:589–599.
3.
Javitt JC, Jacobson G, Schiffman RM: Validity and reliability of the Cataract TyPE Spec: an instrument for measuring outcomes of cataract extraction. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;136:285–290.
4.
Lindstrom RL: Food and Drug Administration study update. One-year results from 671 patients with the 3M multifocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 1993;100:91–97.
5.
Rossetti L, Carraro F, Rovati M, Orzalei N: Performance of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in extracapsular cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994;20:124–128.
6.
Steinert RF, Post CT Jr, Brint SF, Fritch CD, Hall DL, Wilder LW, Fine IH, Lichtenstein SB, Masket S, Casebeeer C: A prospective, randomized, double-masked comparison of a zonal-progressive multifocal intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 1992;99:853–861.
7.
Steinert RF, Aker BL, Trentacost DJ, Smith PJ, Tarantino N: A prospective comparative study of the AMO ARRAY zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 1999;106:1243–1255.
8.
Vaquero M, Encinas JL, Jimenez F: Visual function with monofocal versus multifocal IOLs. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996;22:1222–1225.
9.
Javitt JC, Steinert RF: Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a multinational clinical trial evaluating clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Ophthalmology 2000;107:2040–2048.
10.
Gimbel HV, Sanders DR, Raanan MG: Visual and refractive results of multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 1991;98:881–888.
11.
Davison JA, Simpson MJ: History and development of the apodized diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:849–858.
12.
Blaylock JF, Si Z, Vickers C: Visual and refractive status at different focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1464–1473.
13.
Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Aggarwal RK, Kasaby S: ReSTOR intraocular lens implantation in cataract surgery: quality of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1459–1463.
14.
Souza CE, Gerente VM, Chalita MR, Soriano ES, Freitas LL, Belfort R: Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, reading speed, and wavefront analysis: pseudophakic eye with multifocal IOL (ReSTOR) versus fellow phakic eye in non-presbyopic patients. J Refract Surg 2006;22:303–305.
15.
Souza CE, Muccioli C, Soriano ES, Chalita MR, Oliveira F, Freitas LL, Meire LP, Tamaki C, Belfort R Jr: Visual performance of AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL: a prospective comparative trial. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:827–832.
16.
Kohnen T, Allen D, Boureau C, Dublineau P, Hartmann C, Mehdorn E, Rozot P, Tassinari G: European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 2006;113:584.e1.
17.
Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products, draft, EMEA, November 18, 2004. http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/13939104en.pdf.
18.
Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims, draft guidance, FDA, February 2006. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.htm.
19.
Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fullerton S, Aaronson N, for the European Regulatory Issues on quality of life assessment group: Patient reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life. A European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Inf J 2002;36:209–238.
20.
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F: Health economic guidelines – similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001;4:225–250.
21.
Sloan J, Symonds T, Vargas-Chanes D: Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Inf J 2003;37:23–31.
22.
Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A: Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to cataract surgery and treatment of other chronic ocular conditions. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:680–685.
23.
Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD; National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire Field Test Investigators: Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1050–1058.
24.
Mangione CM, Lee PP, Pitts J, Gutierrez P, Berry S, Hays RD: Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ Field Test Investigators. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:1496–1504.
25.
Cassard SD, Patrick DL, Damiano AM, Legro MW, Tielsch JM, Diener-West M, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Bass EB, Steinberg EP: Reproducibility and responsiveness of the VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataracts. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:1508–1513.
26.
Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, Legro MW, Diener-West M, Bass EB, Damiano AM: The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:630–638.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.