Anne-Karen von Beckerath1, Toam Katz1,2,3, Anna Harfst1, Vasyl Druchkiv1,2,3, Andreas Frings4,5,6. 1. Medical University Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Care Vision Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. andi.frings@gmail.com. 5. UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 11-43 Bath St, London EC1V 9EL, UK. andi.frings@gmail.com. 6. Care Vision Nuremberg, Zeltnerstr. 1-3, 90443, Nuremberg, Germany. andi.frings@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the refractive results of a LASIK enhancement and its impact on treatment safety, efficacy, predictability and patient reported outcome in eyes after clear lens extraction and diffractive trifocal lens implantation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort multicentre study of Care Vision Refractive Centres in Germany compared two groups of patients. Group 1 consisted of eyes that had non-toric MIOL surgery only, whereas group 2 had a consecutive laser enhancement after 3 months follow-up. Refractive and subjective results of the two groups were compared. Patient reported outcome measurements were assessed by using a 30-item questionnaire with four subscales. (Spectacle Dependence, Eye Comfort, Freedom and Looking/Feeling Well). Refractive results were reported following standard reporting in refractive surgery. RESULTS: 139 eyes of 79 patients were included in which either MIOL surgery or MIOL surgery plus LASIK enhancement had been performed between January and December 2017. UDVA reached 0.1logMAR (0.8; 20/25) in 94% in group 2 and 85% in group 1. Compared to preoperative CDVA no change in Snellen lines of CDVA was shown in 89% in group 1 and in 93% in group 2. Spectacle dependence (P = 0.41), eye comfort (P = 0.15), freedom (P = 0.48) and looking/feeling well (P = 0.45) showed no statistically significant difference between both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with residual ametropia after MIOL implantation, LASIK provides a reliable, safe and efficient way to achieve the desired refractive outcome and patient satisfaction. We recommend performing Laser enhancement at 3 months after MIOL implantation (Bioptics) in trifocal MIOL patients that benefit from improvement of residual ametropia.
PURPOSE: To investigate the refractive results of a LASIK enhancement and its impact on treatment safety, efficacy, predictability and patient reported outcome in eyes after clear lens extraction and diffractive trifocal lens implantation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort multicentre study of Care Vision Refractive Centres in Germany compared two groups of patients. Group 1 consisted of eyes that had non-toric MIOL surgery only, whereas group 2 had a consecutive laser enhancement after 3 months follow-up. Refractive and subjective results of the two groups were compared. Patient reported outcome measurements were assessed by using a 30-item questionnaire with four subscales. (Spectacle Dependence, Eye Comfort, Freedom and Looking/Feeling Well). Refractive results were reported following standard reporting in refractive surgery. RESULTS: 139 eyes of 79 patients were included in which either MIOL surgery or MIOL surgery plus LASIK enhancement had been performed between January and December 2017. UDVA reached 0.1logMAR (0.8; 20/25) in 94% in group 2 and 85% in group 1. Compared to preoperative CDVA no change in Snellen lines of CDVA was shown in 89% in group 1 and in 93% in group 2. Spectacle dependence (P = 0.41), eye comfort (P = 0.15), freedom (P = 0.48) and looking/feeling well (P = 0.45) showed no statistically significant difference between both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with residual ametropia after MIOL implantation, LASIK provides a reliable, safe and efficient way to achieve the desired refractive outcome and patient satisfaction. We recommend performing Laser enhancement at 3 months after MIOL implantation (Bioptics) in trifocal MIOL patients that benefit from improvement of residual ametropia.
Authors: Jorge L Alió; Ana B Plaza-Puche; David P Piñero; Francisco Amparo; Ramón Jiménez; Jose L Rodríguez-Prats; Jaime Javaloy; Vanessa Pongo Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.351
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
Authors: Jan A Venter; Martina Pelouskova; Barrie M Collins; Steven C Schallhorn; Stephen J Hannan Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2013-07-13 Impact factor: 3.351