| Literature DB >> 34381620 |
Sheetal Brar1, Smith Snehal Sute1, Sheetal N Bagare1, Sri Ganesh1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the functional outcomes and reading speeds following PRESBYOND laser blended vision (LBV) using nonlinear aspheric ablation profiles with micro-monovision with the Carl Zeiss Meditec MEL 90 platform.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34381620 PMCID: PMC8352685 DOI: 10.1155/2021/2957443
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
Patient demographics and preoperative data.
|
| ||
| Total no. of eyes | 60 | |
| Total no. of patients | 30 | |
| Male: female | 14 : 16 | |
| Age (years) | 50.47 ± 6.43 | |
| Binocular UDVA (log MAR) | 0.48 ± 0.39 | |
| Binocular CDVA (log MAR) | −0.01 ± 0.06 | |
| Binocular DCNVA (log MAR) | 0.23 ± 0.06 | |
| K mean (D) | 43.89 ± 1.38 | |
| CCT ( | 529.93 ± 34.10 | |
| Optical zone (mm) | 6.45 ± 0.19 | |
| Flap thickness ( | 118.33 ± 8.89 | |
| Ablation depth ( | 49.3 ± 26.57 | |
| Post-op RST ( | 356.30 ± 43.97 | |
| −0.23 ± 0.28 | ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Parameter (mean ± SD) | Dominant eyes ( | Nondominant eyes ( |
|
| ||
| Sphere (D) | −0.075 ± 1.72 | −0.25 ± 2.40 |
| Cylinder (D) | −0.24 ± 0.80 | −0.41 ± 0.91 |
| SE (D) | −0.19 ± 1.93 | −0.47 ± 2.70 |
| UDVA (log MAR) | 0.48 ± 0.39 | 0.62 ± 0.41 |
| CDVA (log MAR) | −0.01 ± 0.06 | −0.01 ± 0.08 |
| DCNVA (log MAR) | 0.23 ± 0.06 | 0.22 ± 0.05 |
D: dioptre, SE = spherical equivalent, UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity, CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity, DCNVA = distance corrected near visual acuity, K = keratometry, CCT = central corneal thickness, and RST = residual stromal thickness.
Figure 1Cumulative histogram for binocular UDVA and CDVA at 6 months post-op.
Figure 2Cumulative histogram for binocular UNVA at 6 months post-op.
Visual acuity outcomes and reading performance at 6 months postoperatively.
| Parameter | Dominant eyes ( | Nondominant eyes ( | |
|
| |||
| Sphere (D) | 0.02 ± 0.23 | −1.20 ± 0.36 | |
| Cylinder (D) | −0.09 ± 0.31 | −0.11 ± 0.19 | |
| SE (D) | −0.03 ± 0.29 | −1.26 ± 0.40 | |
| UDVA (log MAR) | −0.03 ± 0.67 | 0.39 ± 0.19 | |
| CDVA (log MAR) | −0.04 ± 0.54 | −0.03 ± 0.05 | |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Parameter | Uncorrected | Distance corrected | |
| Distance | −0.032 ± 0.06 | −0.06 ± 0.05 | 0.06 |
| Near | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.4 ± 0.11 | 0.01 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Reading acuity (log MAR) (mean ± SD) | Pre corrected | Post uncorrected | |
| 40 cm | 0.043 ± 0.12 | 0.031 ± 0.11 | 0.70 |
| 60 cm | 0.049 ± 0.17 | 0.046 ± 0.06 | 0.92 |
| 80 cm | 0.117 ± 0.04 | 0.101 ± 0.05 | 0.21 |
|
| |||
| Letter size (log scale) (mean ± SD) | |||
| 40 cm | 0.71 ± 0.12 | 0.74 ± 0.08 | 0.36 |
| 60 cm | 0.91 ± 0.21 | 0.97 ± 0.16 | 0.19 |
| 80 cm | 0.92 ± 0.17 | 0.95 ± 0.26 | 0.60 |
|
| |||
| Reading speed (WPM) (mean ± SD) | |||
| 40 cm | 150.56 ± 7.3 | 164.03 ± 18.62 | 0.01 |
| 60 cm | 162.67 ± 6.38 | 174.16 ± 9.55 | 0.01 |
| 80 cm | 154.36 ± 7.29 | 165.63 ± 18.06 | 0.01 |
|
| |||
| Reading performance at intermediate distance (60 cm versus 80 cm) at 6 months post-op | |||
| Reading acuity (log MAR) | 0.52 | ||
| Letter size | 0.16 | ||
| Reading speeds (WPM) | 0.02 | ||
Figure 3Histogram showing the accuracy to the intended spherical equivalent refraction for (a) dominant and (b) nondominant eyes at 6 months post-op.
Figure 4Histogram showing change in refractive astigmatism for (a) dominant and (b) nondominant eyes at 6 months postoperatively.
Figure 5Binocular reading performance evaluated using SRD at preferred reading distance, 60 cm, and 80 cm. (a) Reading speed. (b) Letter size.
Subgroup analysis for patients aged “less than 55 years” and “55 years and above.”
| Parameter (mean ± SD) | Less than 55 | 55 and above | |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Distance uncorrected | −0.037 ± 0.06 | −0.01 ± 0.07 | 0.46 |
| Distance corrected | −0.06 ± 0.04 | −0.04 ± 0.05 | 0.39 |
| Near uncorrected | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.05 | 0.27 |
| Near corrected | 0.38 ± 0.10 | 0.45 ± 0.15 | 0.16 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Reading acuity (log MAR) | Less than 55 | 55 and above | |
| 40 cm (pre corrected) | 0.03 ± 0.11 | 0.06 ± 0.14 | 0.6 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 0.02 ± 0.11 | 0.04 ± 0.11 | 0.64 |
| 60 cm (pre corrected) | 0.05 ± 0.15 | 0.04 ± 0.23 | 0.86 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 0.04 ± 0.06 | 0.04 ± 0.05 | 0.76 |
| 80 cm (pre corrected) | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.71 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 0.1 ± 0.05 | 0.10 ± 0.04 | 0.82 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| 40 cm (pre corrected) | 0.71 ± 0.12 | 0.72 ± 0.11 | 0.97 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 0.74 ± 0.08 | 0.73 ± 0.08 | 0.77 |
| 60 cm (pre corrected) | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.82 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 0.97 ± 0.17 | 0.98 ± 0.14 | 0.92 |
| 80 cm (pre corrected) | 0.94 ± 0.16 | 0.86 ± 0.20 | 0.28 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 0.96 ± 0.29 | 0.93 ± 0.20 | 0.96 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| 40 cm (pre corrected) | 150.45 ± 7.28 | 150.87 ± 7.82 | 0.89 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 165.09 ± 20.02 | 161.12 ± 14.85 | 0.61 |
| 60 cm (pre corrected) | 162.72 ± 6.51 | 162.5 ± 6.41 | 0.93 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 173.90 ± 9.99 | 174.87 ± 8.80 | 0.81 |
| 80 cm (pre corrected) | 154.04 ± 7.39 | 155.25 ± 7.42 | 0.69 |
| (Post uncorrected) | 166.63 ± 17.91 | 162.87 ± 19.44 | 0.62 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Pre-op uncorrected | 50 ± 17.18 | 52.5 ± 18.32 | 0.73 |
| Post-op uncorrected | 82.27 ± 36.40 | 96.25 ± 36.22 | 0.55 |
| Post-op uncorrected | 52.27 ± 16.59 | 56.25 ± 15.97 | 0.56 |
Figure 6Contrast sensitivity (F.A.C.T) at 6 months post-op.
Figure 7Defocus curve (distance corrected) at 6 months post-op.
Figure 8Histogram showing the change in Snellen lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA).
Postoperative patient satisfaction score and dysphotopsia grading.
|
| |
| Distance vision | 97.97 ± 2.13 |
| Intermediate vision | 99.36 ± 0.64 |
| Near vision | 96.84 ± 2.36 |
|
| |
| Distance vision | 93.33% (28) |
| Intermediate vision | 100% (30) |
| Near vision | 86.67% (26) |
|
| |
| Grade 0 (nil) | 93.33% (28) |
| Grade 1 (mild) | 6.66% (2) |
| Grade 2 (moderate) | 0% (0) |
| Grade 3 (severe) | 0% (0) |
Satisfaction questionnaire included scores ranging from 0 to 100, where 0 indicated not at all satisfied and 100 indicated completely satisfied, without the need of spectacles. Postoperative spectacle independence was evaluated as the percentage of patients who were completely free or did not feel the need of glasses for a particular distance. Dysphotopsia grading was done as per the following questionnaire: 0 = nil, no dysphotopsia symptoms experienced; 1 = mild, minimal dysphotopsia not affecting night vision and routine activities; 2 = moderate, dysphotopsia symptoms affecting night vision and routine activities, but manageable; 3 = severe, bothersome dysphotopsia, severe enough to interfere in routine activities.