Evaluation of the Aspheric Tecnis Multifocal Intraocular Lens: One-Year Results from the First Cohort of the Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trial

Purpose To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the aspheric diffractive Tecnis multifocal ZM900 (TCMF) intraocular lens (IOL; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc, Santa Ana, California, USA). Design One-year, nonrandomized, multicenter, evaluator-masked, bilateral, parallel-group comparative clinical evaluation. Methods Subjects underwent bilateral implantation with the TCMF IOL or the CeeOn 911A monofocal (CEMN) IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc) according to subject preference. Results One-year results were available for 244 eyes of 125 TCMF IOL subjects and for 245 eyes of 123 CEMN IOL subjects. Mean distance visual acuities (VAs) were statistically and clinically equivalent between the 2 groups. Mean binocular and monocular uncorrected and distance-corrected near VAs were significantly better for the TCMF IOL versus the CEMN IOL group ( P < .0001). A greater proportion of TCMF IOL versus CEMN IOL subjects achieved binocular combined VAs of 20/25 distance and 20/32 near (84.2% [96/114] vs 6.2% [7/113]; P < .0001). The TCMF IOL group had excellent depth of focus, maintaining a mean of 20/40 or better for far, intermediate, and near distances. Mean contrast sensitivity scores were lower for the TCMF IOL versus the CEMN IOL group, but the differences were not considered clinically significant. Halos and night glare were more common in the TCMF IOL versus the CEMN IOL groups. Both reading acuity (20/20 vs 20/47; P < .0007) and speed (148 vs 117 words/minute; P < .0001) were significantly better for the TCMF IOL versus the CEMN IOL group, as were the proportions of the TCMF IOL group versus the CEMN IOL group that achieved spectacle independence (84.8% vs 5.2%; P < .0001) and that functioned comfortably at near without glasses (96.4% vs 30.4%; P < .0001). Conclusions The TCMF IOL provided enhanced near VA, reading acuity per speed, depth of focus, and spectacle independence compared with the monofocal IOL.