1 / 12

Aspheric Diffractive Versus Refractive Multifocal IOLs: Comparison of Visual Prognosis and Patient Satisfaction

Aspheric Diffractive Versus Refractive Multifocal IOLs: Comparison of Visual Prognosis and Patient Satisfaction. Eltutar , Kadir; Akcetin , Tulay A .; Ozcelik , N. Demet. Istanbul Education and Research Hospital Department of Ophthalmology.

nau
Télécharger la présentation

Aspheric Diffractive Versus Refractive Multifocal IOLs: Comparison of Visual Prognosis and Patient Satisfaction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aspheric Diffractive Versus Refractive Multifocal IOLs: Comparison of Visual Prognosis and Patient Satisfaction Eltutar, Kadir; Akcetin, Tulay A.; Ozcelik, N. Demet IstanbulEducationandResearchHospitalDepartment of Ophthalmology Theauthorsstatethattheyhave no proprietaryinterestandtheyhave not receivedanygrantsorfunds in support of thestudy.

  2. Purpose: • Toevaluate the optical and visual performance after bilateral implantation of refractive and aspheric diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses.

  3. Methods: • Theprimaryobjective of thestudywastodeterminetheuncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuitiesafter uncomplicatedcataractsurgery, andbilateral MIOL implantation. • 10 patients who had bilateral implantation of the aspheric diffractive MIOL (n=20; + 4.00 D add), and 10 patients who had bilateral implantation of the refractive MIOL (n=20, + 3.50 add) wereenrolled. • Spectacleindependency, patientsatisfactionandphoticphenomenawereevaluated. • Thestudywascarriedoutprospectivelywith a follow-upperiodlastingforsixmonthspostoperatively.

  4. Methods: • Patients had tofollowtheexaminationdates on postoperativedays 1, 30 and 180. • Immersion A-scanbiometrywasusedforaxiallengthmeasurementswithtargetedemmetropiausing SRK-T formula. • Distancevisualacuitieswereachievedby ETDRS chart at 4,0 meters, intermediate (60.0 cm) andnear (40.0 cm) visualacuitieswereevaluatedwithJaegercards.

  5. Results: • Meanfollowup time was 25,30 ± 2,32 (24-30) weeks. • Meanage of thepatientswas 63,08 ± 4,20 (48-75 years). • Thesepatients had Grade 1-4 bilateralcataract (LOCS III) on baselineexamination. • No intraoperativecomplicationsoccurred in any of thecases. • PreoperativeandpostoperativeLogMAR UCVA findingsshowedstatisticallysignificantdifference in theasphericdiffractiveandtherefractivegroups (p < 0,05) • Consideringuncorrecteddistancevisualacuities , thedifferencebetweentherefractiveandtheasphericdiffractivegroupswas not statisticallysignificant (p>0.05) on postoperativefirstday, firstmonth, andsixthmonthexaminations.

  6. UCVA fordistancevision in bothgroups at certainvisits

  7. Uncorrectednearvisualacuities on postoperativefirstday, firstmonthandsixthmonth

  8. Uncorrectedintermediatevisualacuities at postoperativefirstday, firstmonthandsixthmonth

  9. SpectacleIndependency • Sixmonthspostoperatively, in asphericdiffractivegroupspectacleindependencyrateswere, 93,6 % fordistance, % 94,2 % fornear, and 88,4 % forintermediatevision. • Inrefractivegroupspectacleindependencyrateswere, 94,2 % fordistance, % 90,8 % fornear, and 92,8 % forintermediatevision. • Thedifferencewas not statisticallysignificant (p> 0,05).

  10. Complications related to phacoemulsification and MIOL implantation CME: Cystoid Macular Edema PCO: Posterior Capsular Opacification

  11. Conclusions: • Ourresultsshowthat; bilateralimplantation of MIOLswiththesameopticdesignsprovidesefficientdistancevision. There is no superioritybetweenthetwogroupsconsideringuncorrecteddistancevisualacuities. • The mean uncorrected near visual acuity was better in the aspheric diffractive group. • Themeanuncorrectedintermediatevisualacuitywasbetter in therefractivegroup. • Photicphenomenawastolerable in bothgroups. Though not statisticallysignificant, photicphenomenarelateddisturbanceswererelativelylessdetected in theasphericdiffractivegroup at allvisits.

  12. Conclusions: • ForrefractiveMIOLs, ifpoorlytoleratedbythepatient, photicphenomenamayevenleadtotheextraction of MIOLs. Especially in dimlightconditionssomepatientsmayneedpresbyopiccorrectionbyspectacles, andpatientsmust be warnedabout not drivingforlonghours at night. • ForasphericdiffractiveMIOLswith + 4.00 D add, nearvisionwashighlysatisfactory in bothbrightanddimlightconditions. Somepatientsmayneedspectaclesforintermediatevision, whichmightalso be resolvedbypreoperativetargetedmyopiabybiometry, orpreferringdiffractivemiolswithlower presbyopicaddition.

More Related