Literature DB >> 19465282

Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

Maria A Woodward1, J Bradley Randleman, R Doyle Stulting.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze the reasons for patient dissatisfaction after phacoemulsification with multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and the outcomes after intervention.
SETTING: Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
METHODS: This retrospective review comprised eyes of patients dissatisfied with visual outcomes after multifocal IOL implantation. Outcomes analyzed included type of visual complaint, treatment modality for each complaint, and degree of clinical improvement after intervention.
RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (43 eyes) reported unwanted visual symptoms after multifocal IOL implantation, including in 28 eyes (65%) with an AcrySof ReSTOR IOL and 15 (35%) with a ReZoom IOL. Thirty patients (41 eyes) reported blurred vision, 15 (18 eyes) reported photic phenomena, and 13 (16 eyes) reported both. Causes of blurred vision included ametropia (12 eyes, 29%), dry eye syndrome (6 eyes, 15%), posterior capsule opacification (PCO) (22 eyes, 54%), and unexplained etiology (1 eye, 2%). Causes of photic phenomena included IOL decentration (2 eyes, 12%), retained lens fragment (1 eye, 6%), PCO (12 eyes, 66%), dry-eye syndrome (1 eye, 2%), and unexplained etiology (2 eyes, 11%). Photic phenomena attributed to PCO also caused blurred vision. Thirty-five eyes (81%) had improvement with conservative treatment. Five eyes (12%) did not have improvement despite treatment combinations. Three eyes (7%) required IOL exchange.
CONCLUSIONS: Complaints of blurred vision and photic phenomena after multifocal IOL implantation were effectively managed with appropriate treatment. Few eyes (7%) required IOL exchange. Neodymium:YAG capsulotomy should be delayed until it has been determined that IOL exchange will not be necessary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19465282      PMCID: PMC5125020          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg        ISSN: 0886-3350            Impact factor:   3.351


  38 in total

1.  Pupil size influence on the intraocular performance of the multifocal AMO-Array intraocular lens in elderly patients.

Authors:  C Salati; M L Salvetat; M Zeppieri; P Brusini
Journal:  Eur J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.597

2.  Near vision restoration with refractive lens exchange and pseudoaccommodating and multifocal refractive and diffractive intraocular lenses: comparative clinical study.

Authors:  Jorge L Alió; Marco Tavolato; Fernando De la Hoz; Pascual Claramonte; José-Luis Rodríguez-Prats; Ahmed Galal
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 3.  Refractive intraocular lenses: multifocal and phakic IOLs.

Authors:  Renée Solomon; Eric D Donnenfeld
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol Clin       Date:  2006

4.  Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity: AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive versus AcrySof SA60AT monofocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Enzo Maria Vingolo; PierLuigi Grenga; Luca Iacobelli; Roberto Grenga
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.351

5.  Visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens implants.

Authors:  Jay S Pepose; Mujtaba A Qazi; James Davies; John F Doane; James C Loden; Varunan Sivalingham; Ashraf M Mahmoud
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-07-25       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  Reading ability with 3 multifocal intraocular lens models.

Authors:  Werner W Hütz; H Berthold Eckhardt; Bern Röhrig; Roman Grolmus
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.351

7.  Effect of age and astigmatism on the AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  P C Jacobi; W Konen
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 8.  Refractive enhancement following presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  Marian Sue Macsai; Bruno Machado Fontes
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.761

9.  Visual performance with multifocal intraocular lenses: mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance and near conditions.

Authors:  Robert Montés-Micó; Enrique España; Inmaculada Bueno; W Neil Charman; José L Menezo
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Aberration and contrast sensitivity comparison of aspherical and monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens eyes.

Authors:  Mingbing Zeng; Yizhi Liu; Xialin Liu; Zhaohui Yuan; Lixia Luo; Yuanlin Xia; Yangfa Zeng
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.207

View more
  78 in total

1.  Primary posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis combined with diffractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  M Ouchi
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Corrective Techniques and Future Directions for Treatment of Residual Refractive Error Following Cataract Surgery.

Authors:  Majid Moshirfar; Michael V McCaughey; Luis Santiago-Caban
Journal:  Expert Rev Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-12

3.  Five-year postoperative outcomes of apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  Mami Yoshino; Hiroko Bissen-Miyajima; Keiichiro Minami; Yoko Taira
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-09-28       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  Impact of pupil transmission apodization on presbyopic through-focus visual performance with spherical aberration.

Authors:  Len Zheleznyak; HaeWon Jung; Geunyoung Yoon
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  The refractive outcome of Toric Lentis Mplus implant in cataract surgery.

Authors:  Patrick J Chiam; Say A Quah
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 1.779

6.  Predictive factor and kappa angle analysis for visual satisfactions in patients with multifocal IOL implantation.

Authors:  G Prakash; D R Prakash; A Agarwal; D A Kumar; A Agarwal; S Jacob
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Diffractive trifocal lens implantation with or without excimer laser enhancement: is a touch-up procedure a negative predictor for refractive and subjective outcome?

Authors:  Anne-Karen von Beckerath; Toam Katz; Anna Harfst; Vasyl Druchkiv; Andreas Frings
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 3.117

8.  Experimental validations of a tunable-lens-based visual demonstrator of multifocal corrections.

Authors:  Vyas Akondi; Lucie Sawides; Yassine Marrakchi; Enrique Gambra; Susana Marcos; Carlos Dorronsoro
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 3.732

9.  Visual performance with accommodating and multifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Jie Lan; Yu-Sen Huang; Yun-Hai Dai; Xiao-Ming Wu; Jia-Jun Sun; Li-Xin Xie
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-02-18       Impact factor: 1.779

10.  Haigis and SRKT formulae accuracy for intentional myopic overcorrection.

Authors:  Rodrigo Faeda Dalto; Miriam A Ferreira; Wilian Queiroz; Roberto Pinto Coelho; Jayter Silva Paula; Andre Messias
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.