Comparison Of Patient's Visual Performance After Mix-And-Match Implanted Edof And Multifocal Lenses With Bilateral Implantation Of The Same Type Of Lens
Published 2022
- 40th Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO221
| Type: ESCRS 2022 - Posters
| DOI:
10.82333/r8h9-6437
Authors:
Malgorzata Kozikowska* 1
, Wojciech Lubon 1
, Ewa Mrukwa-Kominek 1
1Department of Ophthalmology,University Clinical Centre Katowice of Medical University of Silesia in Katowice,Katowice,Poland
Purpose
The aim of the study is to present the preliminary results of comparison between patient’s performance of three examined groups: bilateral implanted EDoF group, bilateral implanted multifocal group and a group of mix-and-match of both types of lenses.
Setting
Qualification of patients, surgery and all follow-ups were carried out in the Department of Ophthalmology of University Clinical Centre in Katowice.
Methods
30 patients (60 eyes) divided into three groups underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation. 10 patient received EDoF lenses ( Vivity, Alcon Laboratories) in both eyes, 10 patients bilateral multifocal lenses (PanOptix; Alcon Laboratories) and 10 received EdoF lens for dominant eye and multiofocal IOL for non-dominant eye. After surgery follow-up visits were planed 14 days, 1,3 and 6 months after surgery. Detailed ophthalmic evaluation was done including uncorrected visual acuity for far, intermediate and near distances, residual refraction using maximum plus technique, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, life quality related to vision using VF-14 questionnaire and assessment of halo and glare.
Results
UCDVA was comparable in all three groups- log mar 0.02 for EDoF group, 0.00 for Mf group and -0.02 for mix-and-match group. Mean UCIVA measured with Jaeger chart at 70 cm distance was J3 in mix-and-match and EDoF group and J4 in Mf group. UCNVA was 0.42 log mar for EDoF group, 0.1 for Mf group and 0.12 for mix-and-match group. Mean result of VF-14 questionaire was 80 points for EDoF, 90 for Mf and 92 for mix-and-match group.
Conclusions
Mix-and-match of EdoF IOL and Mf IOL seems to be a good solution for patients to combine good visual performance at all distances provided by both technologies with minimizing optical side effects like contrast deterioration or halo and glare. Proper and thorough qualification with understanding of the patient’s expectations and the rule ,,underpromise, overdeliver” remains a key to success for surgeons and their patients.