slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Aspheric Diffractive Versus Refractive Multifocal IOLs: Comparison of Visual Prognosis and Patient Satisfaction PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Aspheric Diffractive Versus Refractive Multifocal IOLs: Comparison of Visual Prognosis and Patient Satisfaction

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Aspheric Diffractive Versus Refractive Multifocal IOLs: Comparison of Visual Prognosis and Patient Satisfaction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 413 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Aspheric Diffractive Versus Refractive Multifocal IOLs: Comparison of Visual Prognosis and Patient Satisfaction' - nau


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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.

purpose
Purpose:
  • Toevaluate the optical and visual performance after bilateral implantation of refractive and aspheric diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses.
methods
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.
methods4
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.
results
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.
uncorrected intermediate visual acuities at postoperative first day first month and sixth month
Uncorrectedintermediatevisualacuities at postoperativefirstday, firstmonthandsixthmonth
spectacle independency
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).
slide10

Complications related to phacoemulsification and MIOL implantation

CME: Cystoid Macular Edema

PCO: Posterior Capsular Opacification

conclusion s
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.
conclusion s12
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.