The tolerance of refractive errors of extended depth of focus intraocular lens in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery.
Cataract
Corneal refractive surgery
Extended depth of focus intraocular lens
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
03
11
2022
accepted:
23
06
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
17
7
2023
entrez:
17
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the tolerance for refractive errors and visual outcomes of extended depth of focus intraocular lens (EDOF IOLs) in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery for myopia. Patients from Aier Eye Hospital of Wuhan University with previous myopia excimer laser correction underwent cataract surgery and implantation of an EDOF IOL. The follow-up period was three months. The uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities (UDVA, UIVA, UNVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), spherical equivalent (SE), defocus curve, optical quality, including modulation transfer functions (MTF) and Strehl ratio (SR), National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-14 for Chinese people (VF-14-CN), spectacle independence, and dysphotopsia were assessed. At the final visit, UDVA, CDVA, UIVA, and UNVA (LogMAR) were 0.06 ± 0.09, 0.01 ± 0.06, 0.11 ± 0.08, 0.20 ± 0.10, respectively. The mean spherical equivalent (SE) was - 0.57 ± 0.58D, sphere and cylinder were - 0.24 ± 0.60D, - 0.70 ± 0.58D respectively. No statistical difference in UDVA between eyes with SE in ± 0.50 D and in ± 1.0 D (p > 0.05). Corneal astigmatism > 1.00D has no significant effect on postoperative visual acuity (p > 0.05). The defocus curve showed that visual acuity could reach 0.2 in the refractive range of + 0.50D ~ - 1.50D. SR and MTF values were all higher than before the surgery. In bilateral implantation patients, the VF-14-CN questionnaire score and visual quality were quite excellent. The EDOF IOL have a certain tolerance for refractive errors and corneal astigmatism, and it's recommended for patients with prior myopia excimer laser surgery to achieve satisfactory visual performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37458945
doi: 10.1007/s10792-023-02802-2
pii: 10.1007/s10792-023-02802-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3989-3997Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Références
Iijima K, Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, Komatsu M (2015) Demographics of patients having cataract surgery after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(2):334–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.05.045
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.05.045
pubmed: 25661126
Vrijman V, van der Linden JW, van der Meulen I, Mourits MP, Lapid-Gortzak R (2018) Multifocal intraocular lens implantation after previous hyperopic corneal refractive laser surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 44(4):466–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.01.030
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.01.030
pubmed: 29685778
Jorgensen A, Weber CH (2017) New intraocular lenses. Adv Ophthalmol Optom 2(1):167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yaoo.2017.05.001
doi: 10.1016/j.yaoo.2017.05.001
Pantanelli SM, Lin CC, Al-Mohtaseb Z, Rose-Nussbaumer JR, Santhiago MR, Steigleman WA 3rd, Schallhorn JM (2021) Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with previous excimer laser surgery for myopia: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 128(5):781–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.031
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.031
pubmed: 33500124
Wang L, Koch DD (2021) Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery: review and expert opinion. Ophthalmology 128(11):e121–e131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.054
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.054
pubmed: 32615201
Son HS, Kim SH, Auffarth GU, Choi CY (2019) Prospective comparative study of tolerance to refractive errors after implantation of extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses with identical aspheric platform in Korean population. BMC Ophthalmol 19(1):187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1193-z
doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1193-z
pubmed: 31426775
pmcid: 6700984
Cochener B (2017) Tecnis symfony intraocular lens with a “sweet spot” for tolerance to postoperative residual refractive errors. Open J Ophthalmol 7:14–20. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojoph.2017.71003
doi: 10.4236/ojoph.2017.71003
Carones F (2017) residual astigmatism threshold and patient satisfaction with bifocal, trifocal and extended range of vision intraocular lenses (IOLs). Open J Ophthalmol 7:1–7. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojoph.2017.71001
doi: 10.4236/ojoph.2017.71001
Olson RJ, Braga-Mele R, Chen SH, Miller KM, Pineda R 2nd, Tweeten JP, Musch DC (2017) Cataract in the adult eye preferred practice pattern
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.027
pubmed: 27745902
Haigis W (2008) Intraocular lens calculation after refractive surgery for myopia: Haigis-L formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 34(10):1658–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.06.029
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.06.029
pubmed: 18812114
Abulafia A, Hill WE, Koch DD, Wang L, Barrett GD (2016) Accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula for intraocular lens power prediction after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(3):363–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.039
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.039
pubmed: 27006324
Shammas HJ, Shammas MC (2007) No-history method of intraocular lens power calculation for cataract surgery after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.08.045
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.08.045
pubmed: 17189790
Ribeiro FJ, Castanheira-Dinis A, Dias JM (2012) Personalized pseudophakic model for refractive assessment. PLoS ONE 7(10):e46780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046780
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046780
pubmed: 23056450
pmcid: 3463546
Akella SS, Juthani VV (2018) Extended depth of focus intraocular lenses for presbyopia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 29(4):318–322. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000490
doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000490
pubmed: 29697436
Ferreira TB, Pinheiro J, Zabala L, Ribeiro FJ (2018) Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes of a monofocal and an extended-range-of-vision intraocular lens in eyes with previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 44(2):149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.11.007
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.11.007
pubmed: 29526338
Li QM, Wang F, Wu ZM, Liu Z, Zhan C, Chen BH, Sima J, Stieger K, Li SW (2020) Trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation in patients after previous corneal refractive laser surgery for myopia. BMC Ophthalmol 20(1):293. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01556-0
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01556-0
pubmed: 32680481
pmcid: 7367255
Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C (2018) A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 34(8):507–514. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02
pubmed: 30089179
Pedrotti E, Bruni E, Bonacci E, Badalamenti R, Mastropasqua R, Marchini G (2016) Comparative analysis of the clinical outcomes with a monofocal and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 32(7):436–442. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160428-06
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20160428-06
pubmed: 27400074
Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengózar-Vela A, Aramburu A, Ruiz-Santos M (2017) Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of extended range of vision and trifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 27(4):460–465. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000935
doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000935
pubmed: 28165609
Breyer D, Kaymak H, Ax T, Kretz F, Auffarth GU, Hagen PR (2017) Multifocal intraocular lenses and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Asia-Pac J Ophthalmol 6(4):339–349. https://doi.org/10.22608/APO.2017186
doi: 10.22608/APO.2017186
Escandón-García S, Ribeiro FJ, McAlinden C, Queirós A, González-Méijome JM (2018) Through-focus vision performance and light disturbances of 3 new intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction. J ophthalmol 2018:6165493. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6165493
doi: 10.1155/2018/6165493
pubmed: 29651343
pmcid: 5831879
Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Netto MV, Ghanen RC, Monteiro ML, Bechara SJ, Espana EM, Mello GR, Kara N (2012) Modulation transfer function and optical quality after bilateral implantation of a +3.00 D versus a +4.00 D multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(2):215–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.08.029
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.08.029
pubmed: 22104642
Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O, Savastano A, Rizzo S (2018) Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol (Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie) 256(10):1913–1922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4052-3
doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-4052-3
Pedrotti E, Carones F, Aiello F, Mastropasqua R, Bruni E, Bonacci E, Talli P, Nucci C, Mariotti C, Marchini G (2018) Comparative analysis of visual outcomes with 4 intraocular lenses: monofocal, multifocal, and extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 44(2):156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.11.011
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.11.011
pubmed: 29587972
Koo OS, Kang JW, Park JK, Kim KH (2021) Visual performance and patient satisfaction after implantation of extended range-of-vision IOLs: bilateral implantation versus 2 different mix-and-match approaches. J Cataract Refract Surg 47(2):192–197. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000424
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000424
pubmed: 32947388
Pilger D, Homburg D, Brockmann T, Torun N, Bertelmann E, von Sonnleithner C (2018) Clinical outcome and higher order aberrations after bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol 28(4):425–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672118766809
doi: 10.1177/1120672118766809
pubmed: 29623732