2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Patient Satisfaction, Visual Outcomes, and Regression Analysis in Post-LASIK Patients Implanted With Multifocal, EDOF, or Monofocal IOLs

      1
      Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice
      Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          To compare and contrast functional visual outcomes and levels of patient satisfaction in post–laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) cataract patients with multifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), or monofocal intraocular lens (IOLs).

          Methods:

          Three cohorts of post-LASIK eyes with multifocal, EDOF, or monofocal IOLs were evaluated. Objective preoperative and postoperative clinical metrics, including higher-order aberration, contrast sensitivity, and visual acuities, plus subjective responses to a questionnaire about satisfaction, spectacle use, and ability to perform tasks were compared. Variables were regressed against “overall patient satisfaction” to identify predictors of satisfaction.

          Results:

          Ninety-seven percent of patients were “very satisfied” or “satisfied.” “Very satisfied” was significantly greater in multifocal (86.8%, 33 of 38) and EDOF (72.7%, 8 of 11) vs. monofocal (33.3%, 6 of 18) IOLs. However, EDOF IOLs outperformed monofocal IOLs for intermediate ( P=0.04). Contrast sensitivity was significantly worse at distance for multifocal vs. both EDOF ( P=0.05) and monofocal ( P=0.005) IOLs. Regression revealed that greater patient satisfaction in multifocal was explained by near visual function variables, including UNVA ( P=0.001) and UIVA ( P=0.04), reading acuity ( P=0.014), reading speed ( P=0.05), spectacle use at near ( P=0.0014), and ability to read moderate print ( P=0.002).

          Conclusions:

          Multifocals achieved high satisfaction levels in post-LASIK patients despite higher-order aberrations and lower contrast sensitivity scores; regression revealed that uncorrected near visual function variables explained high levels of satisfaction; dysphotopsias did not contribute significantly to scores for satisfaction; multifocal IOLs are a viable choice for cataract patients who have previously undergone LASIK.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and safety of multifocal intraocular lenses following cataract and refractive lens exchange: Metaanalysis of peer-reviewed publications.

          We performed a metaanaysis of peer-reviewed studies involving implantation of a multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in presbyopic patients with cataract or having refractive lens exchange (RLE). Previous reviews have considered the use of multifocal IOLs after cataract surgery but not after RLE, whereas greater insight might be gained from examining the full range of studies. Selected studies were examined to collate outcomes with monocular and binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity; spectacle independence; contrast sensitivity; visual symptoms; adverse events; and patient satisfaction. In 8797 eyes, the mean postoperative monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was 0.05 logMAR ± 0.006 (SD) (Snellen equivalent 20/20(-3)). In 6334 patients, the mean binocular UDVA was 0.04 ± 0.00 logMAR (Snellen equivalent 20/20(-2)), with a mean spectacle independence of 80.1%. Monocular mean UDVA did not differ significantly between those who had a cataract procedure and those who had an RLE procedure. Neural adaptation to multifocality may vary among patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of intraocular lens power prediction methods using the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons Post-Keratorefractive Intraocular Lens Power Calculator.

            To evaluate the accuracy of methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction after previous laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) using the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery IOL power calculator. Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA. The following methods were evaluated: methods using pre-LASIK/PRK keratometry (K) and surgically induced change in refraction, methods using surgically induced change in refraction, and methods using no previous data. The predicted IOL power was calculated with each method using the actual refraction after cataract surgery as the target. The IOL prediction error was calculated as the implanted IOL power minus the predicted IOL power. Arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction errors, variances in mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, and percentage of eyes within +/-0.50 diopter (D) and +/-1.00 D of refractive prediction errors were calculated. Methods using surgically induced change in refraction or no previous data had significantly smaller mean absolute IOL prediction errors, smaller variances, and a greater percentage of eyes within +/-0.50 D and +/-1.00 D of refractive prediction errors than methods using pre-LASIK/PRK keratometry (K) values and surgically induced change in refraction (all P<.05 with Bonferroni correction). There were no statistically significant differences between methods using surgically induced change in refraction and methods using no previous data. Methods using surgically induced change in refraction and methods using no previous data gave better results than methods using pre-LASIK/PRK K values and surgically induced change in refraction. Copyright (c) 2010 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery

              Background This review aims to explain the reasons why intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is challenging in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery and what solutions are currently available to obtain more accurate results. Review After IOL implantation in eyes with previous LASIK, PRK or RK, a refractive surprise can occur because i) the altered ratio between the anterior and posterior corneal surface makes the keratometric index invalid; ii) the corneal curvature radius is measured out of the optical zone; and iii) the effective lens position is erroneously predicted if such a prediction is based on the post-refractive surgery corneal curvature. Different methods are currently available to obtain the best refractive outcomes in these eyes, even when the perioperative data (i.e. preoperative corneal power and surgically induced refractive change) are not known. In this review, we describe the most accurate methods based on our clinical studies. Conclusions IOL power calculation after myopic corneal refractive surgery can be calculated with a variety of methods that lead to relatively accurate outcomes, with 60 to 70% of eyes showing a prediction error within 0.50 diopters.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1542-2321
                2023
                April 2023
                February 22 2023
                : 49
                : 4
                : 160-167
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Bucci Laser Vision Institute, Wilkes-Barre, PA.
                Article
                10.1097/ICL.0000000000000979
                36811831
                b6c56788-cb9c-4af7-bb00-8194193a0a1d
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article