ESCRS - FPT03.06 - Satisfaction Rate After Presbyopic Monovision Refractive Correction With And Without Monovision Simulation

Satisfaction Rate After Presbyopic Monovision Refractive Correction With And Without Monovision Simulation

Published 2022 - 40th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: FPT03.06 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/sdt6-r664

Authors: Gianella Corredores* 1 , Samer Abu Tair 1 , Benjamin Stern 1 , Guy Kleinmann 2 , David Smadja 1

1Ophthalmology,Hadassah Medical Center,Jerusalem,Israel, 2Ophthalmology,Wolfson Medical Center ,Holon,Israel

Purpose

To evaluate the satisfaction rate and visual outcomes after presbyopic correction with mini-monovision protocol, and the variables related to insatisfaction rate in both groups

Setting

Ophthalmology Department, Refractive Surgery Unit.

Ein Tal Hadassah Laser Institute

Hadassah University Medical Center

Methods

Retrospective study, we examined the files of patients that underwent monovision refractive correction by two different physicians, with and without simulation. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), Distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, type of procedure. UCDVA and uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA) were recorded postoperatively at 1and 3 months follow-up. A multiple-choice satisfaction questionnaire was built in an online platform and sent via email; questions included full name, their overall visual satisfaction, their experience with dry eyes, and rate of satisfaction for near vision, far vision, driving at night and outdoors activities.

Results

Included were 104 patients, 69 patients (134 eyes) without monovision simulation and 35 (62 eyes) with monovision simulation. In the no simulation group, preoperatively, mean age was 45.4±9.5, Mean SE was -2.84±2.78 and Mean DCNVA was 0.78±0.88. In the simulation group, preoperative mean age was 45.6±3.52, Mean SE was -4.58±2.59 and mean DCNVA was 1.13±0.13.

 

Satisfaction rate in the simulation group was 82%, compared to 97.75% in the no simulation group (p<0.17). Among unsatisfied patients, in both groups 80% of patients attributed a significant part of their insatisfaction due to dry eyes. There was no difference satisfaction rate in terms of type of surgery, gender, age or type of refractive error.

Conclusions

Monovision refractive correction resulted in a higher satisfaction rate in patients who did not undergo simulation, dry eyes and difficulty driving at night represent the biggest challenges and were correlated to be principal variables to unsatisfaction after presbyopic refractive correction. Our results suggest that monovision simulation is not necessary and may bias patient’s decision due to poor adaptation during trial period.