Boyun Kim1, Soonil Kwon2, Ayoung Choi1, Sohee Jeon3. 1. Keye Eye Center, 326 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Republic of Korea. 3. Keye Eye Center, 326 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea. soheeeee@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the influence of mild non-foveal involving epiretinal membrane (ERM) on visual outcome in eyes with multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) implantation. METHODS: Patients with history of MIOL implantation were screened for the presence of ERM using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) at postoperative 6 months. Ninety-one eyes with mild non-foveal involving ERM and history of MIOL implantation were compared with 83 age-matched controls without ERM and history of MIOL implantation. The visual acuity (corrected and uncorrected) and visual quality (contrast sensitivity, Strehl ratio, area ratio, and higher-order aberrations; HOAs) of the eyes with mild non-foveal involving ERM were compared with the data of the age-matched control group. RESULTS: There was no difference in visual acuity between the groups at baseline and postoperative 6 months. The mild non-foveal involving ERM group showed significantly low contrast sensitivity at a visual angle of 4.0°, 2.5°, 1.0°, and 0.64° under scotopic conditions (P = .048, P = .025, P = .003, and P = .02, respectively) and 4.0°, 1.0°, and 0.64° under photopic conditions (P = .028, P = .002, and P = .001, respectively). The mean area ratio of the mild non-foveal involving ERM group was 45.13 ± 10.93, which was significantly lower than that of the control group, which measured 50.34 ± 12.66 (P = .044). CONCLUSION: A mild non-foveal involving ERM has no effect on visual acuity, but it reduces visual quality in eyes with MIOL implantation. A thorough screening using SD-OCT is warranted for this condition when considering MIOL implantation.
PURPOSE: To determine the influence of mild non-foveal involving epiretinal membrane (ERM) on visual outcome in eyes with multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) implantation. METHODS:Patients with history of MIOL implantation were screened for the presence of ERM using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) at postoperative 6 months. Ninety-one eyes with mild non-foveal involving ERM and history of MIOL implantation were compared with 83 age-matched controls without ERM and history of MIOL implantation. The visual acuity (corrected and uncorrected) and visual quality (contrast sensitivity, Strehl ratio, area ratio, and higher-order aberrations; HOAs) of the eyes with mild non-foveal involving ERM were compared with the data of the age-matched control group. RESULTS: There was no difference in visual acuity between the groups at baseline and postoperative 6 months. The mild non-foveal involving ERM group showed significantly low contrast sensitivity at a visual angle of 4.0°, 2.5°, 1.0°, and 0.64° under scotopic conditions (P = .048, P = .025, P = .003, and P = .02, respectively) and 4.0°, 1.0°, and 0.64° under photopic conditions (P = .028, P = .002, and P = .001, respectively). The mean area ratio of the mild non-foveal involving ERM group was 45.13 ± 10.93, which was significantly lower than that of the control group, which measured 50.34 ± 12.66 (P = .044). CONCLUSION: A mild non-foveal involving ERM has no effect on visual acuity, but it reduces visual quality in eyes with MIOL implantation. A thorough screening using SD-OCT is warranted for this condition when considering MIOL implantation.