Imperfect Macula? Is The Emv Iol A Solution For Demanding Patient?
Published 2024 - 42nd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO337 | Type: Poster | DOI: 10.82333/azk1-bj33
Authors: Mateusz Jakub Porwolik* 1 , Małgorzata Luboń 1 , Dominik Dygas 2 , Ewa Mrukwa-Kominek 1
1Department of Ophthalmology,Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia,Katowice,Poland;Department of Ophthalmology,Kornel Gibiński University Clinical Center,Katowice,Poland, 2Department of Ophthalmology,Kornel Gibiński University Clinical Center,Katowice,Poland
Purpose
IOL implantation has gained popularity in ophthalmic surgery as a method of treating cataract and refractive disorders among. In multifocal IOLs, which are commonly used for correcting presbyopia, patients can see at distance and near at the same time. Nevertheless, the special cases are not allowed to implant multifocal IOLs by the ophthalmic surgeons and other types of IOL will be mainly used. The RayOne EMV IOL is brand new one-component hydrophobic acrylic lens which is created to ensure best visual outcomes with minimal amount of glare and halos. In this case, we want to present an EMV lens, as an alternative to monofocal lenses for patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM).
Setting
Department of Ophthalmology, Kornel Gibiński University Clinical Center, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Methods
Report of case: 59-year-old man underwent bilateral cataract surgery with RayOne EMV IOL implantation. There was the patient’s history of epiretinal membrane (ERM), which in consequence disqualified him from implantation of multifocal IOLs. A significant deterioration of pre-operatory vision (Right eye's BCVA 20/40 and left eye's BCVA 20/50) had been observed in both eyes as a result of cataracts.
Results
The surgery was performed under the topical anesthesia, and the RayOne EMV IOL was implanted with standard phacoemulsification technique. The post-operated follow-up was conducted at routine intervals. The patient's visual acuity, refractive status were checked and any complications documented. Visual acuity improvement at a distance and at an intermediate was obtained by the implantation of RayOne EMV IOL. The patient reported no complaints regarding to visual outcome or lowered contrast sensitivity.
Conclusions
This case report demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of the RayOne EMV IOL as an alternative to monofocal IOLs in patients with pre-existing retinal conditions.
EMV provides satisfactory uncorrected distance and intermediate visual acuity without compromising contrast sensitivity or causing visual disturbances.
The RayOne EMV IOL may provide a viable option for patients who are disqualified from multifocal IOL implantation.