Article

Concept of mixing and matching various IOLs not always advantageous, study shows

Is bilateral implantation of an IOL better than contralateral "mixing and matching" of lenses? In one cross-study comparison, postoperative visual outcomes were examined to compare the effectiveness of bilateral implantation of an apodized diffractive IOL versus contralateral implantation of one apodized diffractive IOL and one refractive zonal progressive IOL.

Key Points

Hong Kong-Using various types of IOLs in the same patient has been touted as a way to achieve better vision correction than implanting the same IOL bilaterally. This concept of "mix and match" is not quite that simple, however, said Rubens Belfort Jr., MD, speaking here at the World Ophthalmology Congress. Dr. Belfort is affiliated with the Vision Institute, Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil.

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

Dr. Belfort conducted a cross-study comparison of three studies to evaluate bilateral visual outcomes following implantation of presbyopia-correcting IOLs.

The third study consisted of the label information for the apodized diffractive IOL: 69 patients followed up at 6 months.

To be included in any of the three studies, patients had to be aged at least 21 years at the time of surgery and have received a diagnosis of bilateral cataracts. Other inclusion criteria: calculated lens power within the available range; 1 D or less of astigmatism preoperatively, measured by keratometry, in study eye(s); and clear intraocular media other than cataract.

Patients were randomly selected in the study in which they received contralateral implantation of one apodized diffractive IOL and one refractive zonal progressive IOL. Patients in the other two studies were not randomly selected.

The 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, he and his colleagues examined six criteria: distance visual acuity (VA), uncorrected at 4 m and best-corrected at 4 m; near VA, uncorrected at best distance and distance-corrected at best distance; and intermediate VA, distance-corrected at 60 cm and uncorrected at 60 cm.

They found that although the mixed group that received one apodized diffractive IOL and one refractive zonal progressive IOL had a higher percentage of patients who demonstrated uncorrected distance acuity of 20/20 or better than either of the other two groups, the best-corrected distance acuity was nearly identical across the three studies. "We concluded that there were no advantages to mix and match, or, as the case may be, mix and unmatch," Dr. Belfort said.

Patients in the group that received bilateral apodized diffractive IOLs demonstrated improvements in both uncorrected and distance-corrected near VA compared with the patients who received contralateral implantation of one apodized diffractive IOL and one refractive zonal progressive IOL, however. "This is something we were not expecting," he said.

The same held true for intermediate VA, because the patients who received the apodized diffractive IOL bilaterally demonstrated improvement in intermediate vision compared with patients who received one apodized diffractive IOL and one refractive zonal progressive IOL.

"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 needs and expectations first, in spite of all the technology and all the marketing."

Newsletter

Don’t miss out—get Ophthalmology Times updates on the latest clinical advancements and expert interviews, straight to your inbox.

Related Videos
Shehzad Batliwala, DO, aka Dr. Shehz, discussed humanitarian ophthalmology and performing refractive surgery in low-resource, high-risk areas at the ASCRS Foundation Symposium.
(Image credit: Ophthalmology Times) ASCRS 2025: Advancing vitreous care with Inder Paul Singh, MD
(Image credit: Ophthalmology Times) The Residency Report: Study provides new insights into USH2A target end points
Lisa Nijm, MD, says preoperative osmolarity testing can manage patient expectations and improve surgical results at the 2025 ASCRS annual meeting
At the 2025 ASCRS Annual Meeting, Weijie Violet Lin, MD, ABO, shares highlights from a 5-year review of cross-linking complications
Maanasa Indaram, MD, is the medical director of the pediatric ophthalmology and adult strabismus division at University of California San Francisco, and spoke about corneal crosslinking (CXL) at the 2025 ASCRS annual meeting
(Image credit: Ophthalmology Times) ASCRS 2025: Taylor Strange, DO, assesses early visual outcomes with femto-created arcuate incisions in premium IOL cases
(Image credit: Ophthalmology Times) ASCRS 2025: Neda Shamie, MD, shares her early clinical experience with the Unity VCS system
Patricia Buehler, MD, MPH, founder and CEO of Osheru, talks about the Ziplyft device for noninvasive blepharoplasty at the 2025 American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) annual meeting
(Image credit: Ophthalmology Times) ASCRS 2025: Bonnie An Henderson, MD, on leveraging artificial intelligence in cataract refractive surgery
© 2025 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.