Comparison of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens

To compare outcomes between a new design apodized diffractive hydrophilic multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Seelens MF; study group), and a well-known apodized diffractive hydrophobic multifocal IOL (SN6AD1; control group). A comparative case series comparing refractive and visual outcomes at distance and near. Patient satisfaction with a validated questionnaire, dysphotopsia and straylight measurement scores were recorded at 3 months post-operatively. The study group comprised 48 eyes and the control group 37 eyes. At 3 months post-operatively the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was not statistically significant different between the study group and the control group (0.02 +/- A 0.07 logMAR [SD] vs 0.04 +/- A 0.09 logMAR). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was statistically significantly better with the study lens (-0.04 +/- A 0.05 logMAR vs -0.01 +/- A 0.04 logMAR (p < 0.019). There was no clinical or statistical significant difference at the 40 cm distance (0.09 +/- A 0.12 logMAR vs 0.08 +/- A 0.09 logMAR). The study group had statistically significant better uncorrected near acuity at 50 and 60 cm distances (p < 0.03 and p < 0.007, respectively). In terms of satisfaction the lenses performed equally. Halos were seen less often with the study lens. Straylight, as a parameter for visual quality, was significantly less with the study lens. Conclusion: The Seelens MF performs equally as well as the well-known SN6AD1 for UCDA and CDVA. The Seelens MF performs better at intermediate distance, and seems to allow for better depth of focus, and increased visual quality. More study is needed to corroborate the last finding.