Visual Performance After Mix-And-Match Implantation Of Edof And Multifocal Iol
Published 2023 - 41st Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO0558 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/zja8-ry11
Authors: Ewa Mrukwa-Kominek* 1 , Malgorzata Lubon 2 , Wojciech Lubon 1
1Department of Ophthalmology,Medical University of Silesia,Katowice,Poland;Department of Ophthalmology, , Prof Gibinski's Univesity Clinical Center, Medical University of Silesia,Katowice,Poland, 2Department of Ophthalmology,Medical University of Silesia,Katowice,Poland;Department of Ophthalmology, Prof Gibinski's Univesity Clinical Center, Medical University of Silesia,Katowice,Poland
Purpose
The aim of the study is to present the results of patient’s performance after implantation of Premium Lenses using ,,Mix and Match” technique
Setting
Qualification of patients, surgery and all follow-ups were carried out in the Department of Ophthalmology of Prof Gibinski's Univesity Clinical Center, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice
Methods
12 patients (24 eyes) with bilateral cataract were qualified for phacoemulsification with implantation of premium IOL using ,,mix and match” technique. There were implanted: to dominant eye EDOF lens (Vivity; Alcon Laboratories) and to non-dominant eye multifocal lens (PanOptix; Alcon Laboratories). The IOL power was calculated for emmetropia using Barret TK Universal II formula. The follow-up visits - 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
After Surgery the mean UCDVA was -0.02 logmar ,mean UCIVA 0.17 logmar, UCNVA 0.12 logmar. Binocular UDVA - logMAR -0.05 (-0.18 - 0.10)
Binocular UNVA average logMAR 0.06 (-0.12 - 0.24), binocular UIVA average logMAR 0.17 (0.00 - 0.14). Mean result of VF-14 questionnaire was 92/100 points. Residual refraction was estimated to -0.125Dsph. Defocus curve showed a wide range of useful vision up to 30 cm. Assessment of halo (size 7 and intensity 10) and glare (size 15 and intensity 31) using Halo & Glare Simulator by Dr. Kramer showed mild dysphotopsias, none of the patient reported significant disturbance of daily activities due to dysphotopsias.
Conclusions
,,Mix and match” technique 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 remains a key to success for surgeons and their patients.