Table 3 Subjective evaluation of distance visual acuity by Table 5 Contrast sensitivity values at 60 days Distance vision subjective evaluation test (patient evaluation) D 1.43 0.00 0.00 Eyes 2 15 53 70 Palomino Bautista et al patients (%) Period 15 days 30 days 60 days A 47.14 54.29 60.00 B 14.29 30.00 30.00 C 37.14 15.71 10.00 Notes: A, very good; B, good; C, sufficient; D, insufficient. In an earlier study of three-piece multifocal diffractive lenses,17 longer neuroadaptation rates (time period that the implant wearer requires to adapt to the new visual situation) than with the new intraocular lens were found. Patients with the Tecnis ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lens achieved similar neu- roadaptation values at 60 days of follow-up to patients with the older ZM900 lens at 210 days, probably due to design improve- ments, optical characteristics, and the difference in the incision size. This neuroadaptive process may take several months in some cases, however, and therefore a longer follow-up may be necessary to assess the full potential of the new intraocular lens. It is interesting to note that visual recovery after lens implanta- tion may be significantly accelerated by specific vision training programs, as described by Kaymak et al.18 These authors showed that after 2 weeks of training, the trained eyes (nondominant eye) functioned significantly better than the fellow eye in terms of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. These findings coincide with those of Tan and Fong,19 who found improved contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in low-myopia eyes after neural vision therapy. These results reinforce the idea that neural plasticity has a primary role in the adaptation of the visual system to changing conditions or in the acquisition of new capabilities. However, as in any learning process, results can vary with time and personal effort and are constrained by the inherent limits of each individual. Simultaneous compensation of both spherical and chromatic aberrations was achieved in a single procedure with better visual results than the sum of the separate cor- rections.20–23 This was achieved due to the prolate design of the anterior surface and the low chromatic dispersion of the Table 4 Subjective evaluation of near visual acuity by patients (%) Near vision subjective evaluation test (patient evaluation) Period 15 days 30 days 60 days A 47.14 50.00 74.29 B 25.71 31.43 22.86 C 25.71 18.57 2.86 D 1.43 0.00 0.00 Notes: A, very good; B, good; C, sufficient; D, insufficient. 406 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress Dovepress Contrast sensitivity 1.58 ± 0.11 1.60 ± 0.11 1.64 ± 0.10 1.63 ± 0.10 material used to manufacture the lens compared with other materials. Near and distance visual acuities were good, and the contrast sensitivity was almost unaffected, so the patient’s overall visual performance was excellent. The eyes studied did not require any refractive correction to further improve vision. All measurements for this study were monocular. This fact further reinforces the value of the results because binocular visual acuity is better than monocular in multifocal intraocu- lar lens patients. To conclude, this study shows a high grade of patient satisfaction, as evaluated using distance and near visual acuity tests, and subjective visual perceptions, indicat- ing that implantation of this lens was a good experience for the patient. From the surgeon’s point of view, and supported by subjective satisfaction questionnaires, the ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lens was an effective device for the surgical correction of patients’ accommodation disorders, and one that allowed them to be independent of corrective lenses. Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work. References 1.Owsley C, Sekuler R, Siemsen D. Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vision Res. 1983;23:689–699. 2. Guirao A, Redondo M, Artal P. Optical aberrations of the human cornea as a function of age. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2000;17: 1697–1702. 3. Glasser A, Campbell MC. Presbyopia and the optical changes in the human crystalline lens with age. Vision Res. 1998;38:209–229. 4. Alió JL, Schimchak P, Negri HP, et al. Crystalline lens optical dysfunction through aging. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:2022–2029. 5. Zhao H, Mainster M. The effect of chromatic dispersion on pseudophakic optical performance. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1225–1229. 6. Zhao H, Piers PA, Mainster MA. The additive effects of different optical design elements contributing to contrast loss in pseudophakic eyes implanted with different aspheric IOLs. Presented at XXVII Congress of the ESCRS, September 12–16, 2009; Barcelona, Spain. 7. Terwee T, Weeber H, van der Mooren M, et al. Visualization of the retinal image in an eye model with spherical and aspheric, diffractive, and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2008;24: 223–232. 8. Mainster MA. Violet and blue light blocking intraocular lenses: photoprotection vs photoreception. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90: 784–792. Clinical Ophthalmology 2012:6