ESCRS - PP13.10 - Patient’S Dissatisfaction Following Implantation Of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: Comparison Managed By Intraocular Lenses Exchange With Either Another Multifocal Optical Profile Or A Monofocal Intraocular Lens.

Patient’S Dissatisfaction Following Implantation Of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: Comparison Managed By Intraocular Lenses Exchange With Either Another Multifocal Optical Profile Or A Monofocal Intraocular Lens.

Published 2023 - 41st Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: PP13.10 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/dkxs-y969

Authors: Mario Canto Cerdan* 1 , Olena Al-shymali 1 , Jorge Alio Del Barrio 2 , Colm McAlinden 3 , Jorge Alió 2

1Cornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Unit,Vissum,Alicante,Spain, 2Cornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery Unit,Vissum,Alicante,Spain;Division of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine,Universidad Miguel Hernandez,Alicante,Spain, 3Department of Ophthalmology,Royal Gwent Hospital,Newport,United Kingdom

Purpose

The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of dissatisfied patients reporting poor visual quality following implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses (MF-IOLs), managed by IOL exchange with either another multifocal optical profile or a monofocal IOL (MNF-IOL). 

Setting

All exchange procedures were performed by the same surgeon (JLA) at VISSUM Ophthalmology Institute, Miranza Group (Alicante, Spain).

Methods

This is a retrospective series of cases. MF-IOL exchange was done bilaterally in 32 dissatisfied patients (64 eyes) with the perception of poor visual quality affected by neuroadaptation failure. the first group “MF-by-MF” included patients that had explantation of a MF-IOL followed by the implantation of another MF-IOL of a different optical profile and the second group “MF-by-MO” included patients that had MF-IOL exchanged with a MNF-IOL.  Visual outcomes and complications were analyzed. Questionnaires including Quality of Vision (QoV), Visual Function Index (VF-14) and its Rasch-revised version (VF-8R) and a satisfaction questionnaire were also used for outcome evaluation. 

Results

There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the QoV scores in all three subscales neither preoperatively nor postoperatively between both groups.  Preoperatively no statistically significant differences existed in the VF-14 scores between the two groups (p > 0.050). Postoperatively there were statistically significant differences in VF-14 total score, intermediate vision and near vision in favor of MF-by-MF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VF-8R score of MF-by-MF group was significantly better than that of the MF-by-MO group (P =<0.001). Both uncorrected and best-corrected near and best-corrected distance visual acuities were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in MF-by-MF group compared to MF-by-MO group at 3 months follow-up. 

Conclusions

Patient dissatisfaction with neuroadaptation failure following MF-IOL implantation can be managed by MF-IOL exchange with either a different MF-IOL optical profile or a MNF-IOL. In the current study, MF-by-MF group showed significant better.