Mixing & matching IOLs not always to patient's advantage

Article

Using various types of IOLs in the same patient has been trumpeted as a way to achieve better vision correction than bilaterally implanting the same IOL. Yet, this concept of "mix and match" is not quite that simple.

Using various types of IOLs in the same patient has been trumpeted as a way to achieve better vision correction than bilaterally implanting the same IOL. Yet, this concept of “mix and match” is not quite that simple, said Rubens Belfort, MD, Vision Institute, Federal University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

“Our experience tells us that such decisions depend on individual situations and patient expectations,” Dr Belfort said. “In each case, we must understand the patient and adopt his or her expectations.”

Dr Belfort compared and contrasted three studies. In the first, 40 patients received contralateral implantation with the apodized diffractive (ReSTOR; Alcon)/multifocal (ReZoom; AMO) lenses and were followed up at three months. In the second, 24 patients received bilateral implantation with the apodized diffractive IOL and were followed up at six months. The third study consisted of the label information for the apodized diffractive lens: 69 patients followed up at six months.

The studies had some similarities, such as inclusion criteria and methodology. They also had some differences: for example, the first study was randomized, while the other two were not.

Postoperative evaluation conducted by Dr Belfort included only those criteria that were the same for all three groups. In comparing the results of the three studies, Dr Belfort and his colleagues found that the best-corrected distance acuity was comparable across the three studies. “There were no advantages to mix and match, or mix and unmatch,” he said.The apodized diffractive lens pairing demonstrated improvements in near visual acuity compared with the patients who received the apodized diffractive/multifocal lenses.

“This is something we were not expecting,” Dr Belfort said. The same held true for intermediate visual acuity, as the apodized diffractive lens patients demonstrated improvement in intermediate vision compared with the apodized/multifocal lenses.

“We often hear how wonderful the mix-and-match concept is, but we didn't find that here,” Dr Belfort said. “The thing to remember is to put patients and their expectations first, in spite of all the technology and all the marketing.”

Newsletter

Get the essential updates shaping the future of pharma manufacturing and compliance—subscribe today to Pharmaceutical Technology and never miss a breakthrough.

Recent Videos
Omer Trivizki, MD, MBA, a retina specialist from Tel Aviv Medical Center, speaks about VOY-101, a Novel, Complement-Modulating Gene Therapy for Geographic Atrophy at the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) Annual Meeting
João Pedro Marques, MD, MSc, PhD discusses a retrospective study of 800 patients with inherited retinal diseases during the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) annual meeting
Christine Curcio, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine, shares histology update and revised nomenclature for OCT with Sheryl Stevenson of the Eye Care Network and Ophthalmology Times
© 2025 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.