Synchrony Versus ReSTOR: A Comparison Of Two Presbyopia Correcting Lenses.

1. Con Moshegov
2. Melissa Serna

Perfect Vision Laser Correction Centres, Sydney, Australia

Purpose: To compare the visual outcomes of eyes implanted with the dual optic accommodating Synchrony IOL (AMO) and the diffractive multifocal ReSTOR (Alcon) lenses.

Methods: Twenty eyes of 12 patients underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. 10 eyes of 7 patients were implanted with the Synchrony lens and 10 eyes of 5 patients with the ReSTOR. Though the patients are closely matched for age and pre-operative refractive error, this was not a controlled or randomized study. Refractive outcome and unaided and corrected visual acuity for both distance and near were documented.

Results: The mean pre-operative spherical equivalent of eyes undergoing Synchrony implantation was +2.92D and that of the ReSTOR group was +2.10D. The following day the majority of Synchrony eyes had a visual acuity worse than 6/12; the majority with the ReSTOR had acuities better than 6/12. This reflected the transient myopic shift seen with the Synchrony in the first 6 weeks or so. The mean unaided VA at 1 month was 6/12 with the Synchrony and 6/7.5 with the ReSTOR. Nine of the ten eyes with the Synchrony corrected to 6/6 or better, 7 of the 10 eyes with the ReSTOR did. Four (40%) of Synchrony eyes and 10 (100%) of the ReSTOR eyes were able to read the J8 font or finer with best distance correction in place.

Conclusion: With emmetropia the ability of eyes to see at near was greater with the ReSTOR lens than the Synchrony. However, the best corrected acuity may be better with the Synchrony.