BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine the incidence of pseudophakic dysphotopsia complaints in patients successfully implanted with two 6.0-mm acrylic intraocular optic lenses (IOL) with treated edges: the Sensar AR-40-e (Advanced Medical Optics, Santa Ana, Calif., USA) and the SA-60AT (Alcon, Fort Worth, Tex., USA). METHODS: A patient history and telephone survey at least 1 year after uncomplicated surgery at an academic eye hospital. Patients operated on for cataract with no pathology noted that the procedure could have an impact upon vision. At least 20/25 best corrected vision was documented after surgery, and patients were asked to rate specific dysphotopsia complaints. A single relevant case study is also presented. CASE STUDY: the patient had unremitting dysphotopsia with an SA-60AT IOL and had an AR-40-e implanted in the second eye. She went on to have the SA-60AT exchanged with an AR-40-e IOL with relief of symptoms. Main study: the survey showed both 6.0-mm optic acrylic IOL were similar, except there was significantly more midday dysphotopsia with the SA-60AT in a subgroup (p = 0.014). Both were generally superior to the MA-30 with the SA-30AT between the two extremes. The control group did better than all IOL in general, except in overall satisfaction where the AR-40-e and SA-60AT were better. CONCLUSIONS: Pseudophakia induces dysphotopsia which can be minimized by a 6.0-mm optic and treated IOL edge. Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine the incidence of pseudophakic dysphotopsia complaints in patients successfully implanted with two 6.0-mm acrylic intraocular optic lenses (IOL) with treated edges: the Sensar AR-40-e (Advanced Medical Optics, Santa Ana, Calif., USA) and the SA-60AT (Alcon, Fort Worth, Tex., USA). METHODS: A patient history and telephone survey at least 1 year after uncomplicated surgery at an academic eye hospital. Patients operated on for cataract with no pathology noted that the procedure could have an impact upon vision. At least 20/25 best corrected vision was documented after surgery, and patients were asked to rate specific dysphotopsia complaints. A single relevant case study is also presented. CASE STUDY: the patient had unremitting dysphotopsia with an SA-60AT IOL and had an AR-40-e implanted in the second eye. She went on to have the SA-60AT exchanged with an AR-40-e IOL with relief of symptoms. Main study: the survey showed both 6.0-mm optic acrylic IOL were similar, except there was significantly more midday dysphotopsia with the SA-60AT in a subgroup (p = 0.014). Both were generally superior to the MA-30 with the SA-30AT between the two extremes. The control group did better than all IOL in general, except in overall satisfaction where the AR-40-e and SA-60AT were better. CONCLUSIONS: Pseudophakia induces dysphotopsia which can be minimized by a 6.0-mm optic and treated IOL edge. Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Miguel J Maldonado; Alberto López-Miguel; David P Piñero; José R Juberías; Juan C Nieto; Jorge L Alió Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-01-08 Impact factor: 3.117