Acta ophthalmologica · 2024
Managing dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation through lens exchange using monofocal or alternative multifocal IOLs.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al-Shymali Olena, Cantó-Cerdán Mario, Alió Del Barrio Jorge L, McAlinden Colm, Yebana Pilar, Alio Jorge L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To manage patient dissatisfaction following multifocal intraocular lens (MF-IOL) implantation by IOL exchange with either a monofocal or an alternative MF-IOL, and to compare outcomes in these two groups.
METHODS: MF-IOL exchange was performed in 32 patients (64 eyes) with neuroadaptation failure. The MF-to-MF group involved patients who had a MF-IOL exchanged with another MF-IOL of a different optical profile and the MF-to-MO group involved patients who had a MF-IOL exchanged to a monofocal IOL. Visual outcomes and complications were analysed. The Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire, Visual Function Index (VF-14) and its Rasch-revised version (VF-8R) were also used to assess outcomes.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the QoV scores between the two groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences in VF-14 scores between both groups (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, there were statistically significant differences in VF-14 (total score, intermediate vision and near vision) in favour of the MF-to-MF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VF-8R score in the MF-to-MF group was significantly better than the MF-to-MO group (p ≤ 0.001). Uncorrected and corrected near as well as corrected distance visual acuities were significantly better (p < 0.05) in the MF-to-MF group compared to the MF-to-MO group at 3 months.
CONCLUSION: Patient dissatisfaction and neuroadaptation failure following MF-IOL implantation can be managed by an IOL exchange with an alternative optical design of MF-IOL or a monofocal IOL. Although, in the current study, the MF-to-MF group showed some better postoperative results, both options are feasible solutions.
METHODS: MF-IOL exchange was performed in 32 patients (64 eyes) with neuroadaptation failure. The MF-to-MF group involved patients who had a MF-IOL exchanged with another MF-IOL of a different optical profile and the MF-to-MO group involved patients who had a MF-IOL exchanged to a monofocal IOL. Visual outcomes and complications were analysed. The Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire, Visual Function Index (VF-14) and its Rasch-revised version (VF-8R) were also used to assess outcomes.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the QoV scores between the two groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences in VF-14 scores between both groups (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, there were statistically significant differences in VF-14 (total score, intermediate vision and near vision) in favour of the MF-to-MF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VF-8R score in the MF-to-MF group was significantly better than the MF-to-MO group (p ≤ 0.001). Uncorrected and corrected near as well as corrected distance visual acuities were significantly better (p < 0.05) in the MF-to-MF group compared to the MF-to-MO group at 3 months.
CONCLUSION: Patient dissatisfaction and neuroadaptation failure following MF-IOL implantation can be managed by an IOL exchange with an alternative optical design of MF-IOL or a monofocal IOL. Although, in the current study, the MF-to-MF group showed some better postoperative results, both options are feasible solutions.