1. Comparison of 2 Models of Aspheric Diffractive Multifocal IOL
Dr. Magda Rau, Augenklinik Cham Germany
PRESBYOPIA AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY WITH LENSECTOMY AND TECNIS TM ZM900 MULTIFOCAL FOLDABLE IOL
AuthorM. Rau    GERMANY Co Authors  

2. Tecnis ZM900 silicon
Tecnis ZMA00 acrylic

3. Clinical study prospective case study
from July 2008 until December 2008
40 diffractive MIOLs in 40 eyes of 20 patients
Tecnis ZM900 silicon in one eye, Tecnis ZMA00 acrylic in
the other eye of the same patient
-mean age 76

4. Material and Methods Selection criteria Exclusion criteria:
Cataract bilateral
Strong desire to achieve spectacle independence
Willingness to accept potential optical side effects and longer optical adaptation period after surgery
No retinal and optic nerve pathology
Exclusion criteria:
Patients with astigmatism of more than 1.25 D
Patients who had never been satisfied with prescription of multifocal glasses
Patients with overly high expectations for postoperative vision, anxious or demanding persons

5. Similarities ZMA00 : ZM900 Biconvex 6.0 mm optic
Wavefront-designed aspheric anterior surface
Full diffractive posterior surface
pupil-independent
Light distribution 50/50
+5D to +34D in 0.5D increments
OptiEdge™ design
Optical power add +4.0D to optimize acuity at preferred reading distance of 33 cm

6. Differences: ZMA00 : ZM900 ZM900 ZMA00 ZMA00 Hydrophobic Acrylic
Silicone
Haptics:
13.0 mm
Modified C
Blue PMMA 5°
Haptics:
12.0 mm
Cap C
Clear PVDF 6°

7. Video implantation of Tecnis ZMA00

8. Results Mean BCVA for distance (3 months post-OP) Mean correction:
©Rau

9. Mean UCVA for distance (3 months post-OP)
©Rau

10. Mean UCVA for intermediate (3 months post-OP)
©Rau

11. Mean UCVA for near (3 months post-OP)
©Rau

12. contrast sensitivity Tecnis ZMA00 acrylic Tecnis ZM900 silicon
test with functional acuity contrast method – developed by B.P. Ginsburg
©Rau

13. Are you satiesfied with the achieved optical results?
©Rau

14. Do you experience glare?
©Rau

15. Do you notice halos?
©Rau

16. contrast sensitivity using Pelli-Robson-charts
©Rau

17. contrast sensitivity Tecnis ZMA00 acrylic Tecnis ZM900 silicon
test with functional acuity contrast method – developed by B.P. Ginsburg
Tecnis ZMA00 acrylic
Tecnis ZM900 silicon
©Rau

18. reading speed and reading quality in comparison
result reached
using
Radner Charts
under photopic
(100 cd/m2)
conditions and
40cm distance
©Rau

19. Conclusion
The acrylic IOL is easier to implant because the haptics are more stable and provide better centration.
Both MF IOL provide comparable distance, intermediate and near visual acuity.
Halos and glare are also comparable.
The contrast sensitivity examined with Peli-Robson charts was better for multifocal Tecnis acrylic, the contrast sensitivity curve of Guinsburg box better for acrylic as well.
Faster reading speed was achieved in acrylic group.
In our study the MF Tecnis acrylic in comparison to the MF Tecnis silicon showed improvement in contrast sensitivity and reading speed.
The acrylic lens achieved also higher patient satisfaction.