Barcelona 2015 Programme Registration Glaucoma Day 2015 Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Hotel Booking Star Alliance
ISTANBUL escrs









Take a look inside the London 2014 Congress

video-icon

Then register to join us
in Barcelona!





Comparison of patient satisfaction and visual function after pseudophakic monovision and multifocal intraocular lens implantation

Search Abstracts by author or title
(results will display both Free Papers & Poster)

Session Details

Session Title: Pseudophakic IOLs: Multifocal & Accommodative

Session Date/Time: Monday 07/09/2015 | 08:00-10:30

Paper Time: 08:00

Venue: Room 1

First Author: : S.Abrol INDIA

Co Author(s): :                        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare visual acuity, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity and satisfaction level in pseudophakic patients planned for monovision and those implanted with refractive multifocal intraocular lenses.

Setting:

Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Methods:

In this prospective randomized study, consenting age related cataract patients desiring spectacle independence and found suitable on examination for multifocal implantation or monovision were divided in two groups of 16 each. Conventional phacoemulsification was performed in both eyes at an interval of 2 weeks with implantation of refractive hydrophilic acrylic multifocal intraocular lens in one group and hydrophilic acrylic monofocal lens in the other. 1, 3 and 12 months after binocular implantation, visual acuity and photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity was tested using commercially available chart projector. Level of satisfaction based on a questionnaire was the secondary outcome measure.

Results:

Uncorrected binocular distance vision of 6/9 was achieved after 3 months in 81.2% patients targeted for monovision versus 87.5% with multifocal implants. However, uncorrected near vision was better though not statistically significant (p > .05) in monovision group. Spectacles for distance and near were worn by 37.5% and 12.5% patients in monovision group as compared to 18.5 % and 36% in multifocal group. Contrast sensitivity testing demonstrated impairment in multifocal implant group at 1 and 3 months follow up. Glare and halos was a major factor for dissatisfaction at 1 month than at 3 months in patients with multifocal lenses.

Conclusions:

Pseudophakic monovision is an inexpensive and visually satisfying option in well counselled and selected patients without any compromise in quality of vision. This should always be offered to those desiring spectacle independence.

Financial Interest:

NONE

Back to previous