Visual outcome after rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair surgery in patients with multifocal vs monofocal intraocular lenses.
Journal
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery
ISSN: 1873-4502
Titre abrégé: J Cataract Refract Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8604171
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2021
01 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
27
12
2020
accepted:
22
04
2021
pubmed:
12
5
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
11
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate functional outcome after retinal detachment (RD) repair surgery in eyes with a multifocal intraocular lens (mIOL). Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. Single-center case control study. 52 pseudophakic eyes with successful anatomical outcome after surgical RD repair were included. Retrospectively, 21 mIOL eyes were compared with a matched group of 21 monofocal eyes over 6 weeks. Prospectively, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was evaluated over 12 months in these eyes. Furthermore, uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA, respectively), defocus curves, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated at 1 year in 24 mIOL eyes. 52 eyes of 48 patients comprised the study. The mean CDVA (logMAR) improved significantly from 1.35 ± 1.38 to 0.29 ± 0.37 at 6 weeks and remained stable at 12 months postoperatively in monofocal eyes (P = .001) and from 1.16 ± 1.2 to 0.37 ± 0.29 (6 weeks) and 0.20 ± 0.36 (12 months) in mIOL eyes (P = .001). Univariate factorial analysis of variance showed no statistically significant differences in CDVA at 6 weeks or 12 months postoperatively for IOL type or for preoperative macular status (P > .05). In the prospective cohort of 24 mIOL eyes, a mean CDVA of 0.13 ± 0.33 logMAR, UDVA of 0.21 ± 0.34 logMAR, UIVA of 0.17 ± 0.28 logMAR, and UNVA of 0.23 ± 0.32 logMAR was achieved. Macular status did not affect final outcome significantly (P > .05). Most patients stated they usually did not need spectacles; no patient wanted mIOL replacement. 1 year after successful anatomical repair after 23-gauge vitrectomy with gas tamponade, functionality of mIOL was restored, and CDVA was comparable with that of patients with monofocal IOL.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33974368
pii: 02158034-202112000-00013
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000684
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1561-1567Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.
Références
Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C. Comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 2018;34:507–514
Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Férnandez-Buenaga R, Pikkel J, Maldonado M. Multifocal intraocular lenses: an overview. Surv Ophthalmol 2017;62:611–634
Rosen E, Alió JL, Dick HB, Dell S, Slade S. Efficacy and safety of multifocal intraocular lenses following cataract and refractive lens exchange: metaanalysis of peer-reviewed publications. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016;42:310–328
Grzybowski A, Kanclerz P, Tuuminen R. Multifocal intraocular lenses and retinal diseases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2020;258:805–813
European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Available at: http://www.eurequo.org/ . Accessed April 28, 2020
Cao K, Friedman DS, Jin S, Yusufu M, Zhang J, Wang J, Hou S, Zhu G, Wang B, Xiong Y, Li J, Li X, He H, Chai L, Wan XH. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses for age-related cataract patients: a system review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Surv Ophthalmol 2019;64:647–658
Maurino V, Allan BD, Rubin GS, Bunce C, Xing W, Findl O. Quality of vision after bilateral multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a randomized trial—AT LISA 809M versus AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1. Ophthalmology 2015;122:700–710
de Vries NE, Nuijts RM. Multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: literature review of benefits and side effects. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:268–278
Braga-Mele R, Chang D, Dewey S, Foster G, Henderson BA, Hill W, Hoffman R, Little B, Mamalis N, Oetting T, Serafano D, Talley-Rostov A, Vasavada A, Yoo S; ASCRS Cataract Clinical Committee. Multifocal intraocular lenses: relative indications and contraindications for implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40:313–322
Lois N, Wong D. Pseudophakic retinal detachment. Surv Ophthalmol 2003;48:467–487
Bjerrum SS, Mikkelsen KL, La Cour M. Risk of pseudophakic retinal detachment in 202,226 patients using the fellow nonoperated eye as reference. Ophthalmology 2013;120:2573–2579
Bechrakis NE, Dimmer A. Rhegmatogene netzhautablösung—epidemiologie und risikofaktoren. Ophthalmologe 2018;115:163–178
Gollogly HE, Hodge DO, St Sauver JL, Erie JC. Increasing incidence of cataract surgery: population-based study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1383–1389
Rezar S, Sacu S, Blum R, Eibenberger K, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Georgopoulos M. Macula-on versus macula-off pseudophakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment following primary 23-gauge vitrectomy plus endotamponade. Curr Eye Res 2016;41:543–550
Poulsen CD, Green A, Grauslund J, Peto T. Long-term outcome of patients operated with pars plana vitrectomy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Ophthalmic Res 2020;63:25–33
Heimann H, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Weiss C, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH. Primary pars plana vitrectomy. Techniques, indications, and results. Ophthalmologe 2008;105:19–26
Lewis SA, Miller DM, Riemann CD, Foster RE, Petersen MR. Comparison of 20-, 23-, and 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy in pseudophakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2011;42:107–113
Heimann H, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Weiss C, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Ophthalmology 2007;114:2142–2154
Sun Q, Sun T, Xu Y, Yang XL, Xu X, Wang BS, Nishimura T, Heimann H. Primary vitrectomy versus scleral buckling for the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Curr Eye Res 2012;37:492–499
Abouzeid H, Wolfensberger TJ. Macular recovery after retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006;84:597–605
Ross W, Lavina A, Russell M, Maberley D. The correlation between height of macular detachment and visual outcome in macula-off retinal detachments of <7 days' duration. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1213–1217
Tsang CW, Cheung BT, Lam RF, Lee GK, Yuen CY, Lai TY, Lam DS. Primary 23-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Retina 2008;28:1075–1081
Figueroa MS, Contreras I, Noval S. PACORES Study Group: anatomic and visual outcomes of 23-G vitrectomy without scleral buckling for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Eur J Ophthalmol 2013;23:417–422
Rosa AM, Miranda AC, Patrício MM, McAlinden C, Silva FL, Castelo-Branco M, Murta JN. Functional magnetic resonance imaging to assess neuroadaptation to multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017;43:1287–1296
Rosa AM, Miranda AC, Patrício MM, McAlinden C, Silva FL, Murta JN, Castelo-Branco M. Functional magnetic resonance imaging to assess the neurobehavioral impact of dysphotopsia with multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2017;124:1280–1289
Itoh Y, Inoue M, Rii T, Hirota K, Hirakata A. Correlation between foveal cone outer segment tips line and visual recovery after epiretinal membrane surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:7302–7308
Vingolo EM, Fragiotta S, Domanico D, Limoli PG, Nebbioso M, Spadea L. Visual recovery after primary retinal detachment surgery: biofeedback rehabilitative strategy J Ophthalmol 2016;2016:8092396
Hadayer A, Jusufbegovic D, Schaal S. Retinal detachment repair through multifocal intraocular lens-overcoming visualization challenge of the peripheral retina. Int J Ophthalmol 2017;10:1008–1010
Kawamura R, Inoue M, Shinoda K, Bissen-Miyajima H. Intraoperative findings during vitreous surgery after implantation of diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:1048–1049