Cargando…

Clinical Outcomes with Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses in Cases in Which Multifocal Lenses Are Not Primarily Recommended

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the visual and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) who were not primarily good candidates for multifocal IOL implantation. METHODS: Retrospecti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Álvarez-García, María Teresa, Fuente-García, Carlota, Muñoz-Puyol, Cristina, Piñero, David P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10289873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37362313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8814627
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the visual and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) who were not primarily good candidates for multifocal IOL implantation. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from 30 eyes (23 patients) undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of one of two EDOF IOLs (follow-up: 37.9 ± 16.2 months) and prospective observational study including 106 eyes (78 patients) implanted with one of 6 different EDOF models (follow-up: 8.0 ± 7.7 months). Patients recruited had one of the following conditions: monofocal IOL implanted in the fellow eye, previous corneal refractive surgery, mild and nonprogressive maculopathy or glaucoma, age > 75 years, amblyopia, or previous vitrectomy. RESULTS: In the retrospective phase, significant improvements were found in uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) (p ≤ 0.013), with a nonsignificant trend to improvement in uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). A total of 90% of patients were completely to moderately satisfied with the outcome achieved. In the prospective phase, significant improvements were found in UDVA, CDVA, UNVA, and CNVA (p ≤ 0.032), with a total of 85.5% of patients being completely to moderately satisfied (dissatisfaction 3.3%). In both phases, extreme difficulties were only reported by a limited percentage of patients for performing some near vision activities. CONCLUSIONS: EDOF IOLs seem to be a viable option for providing an efficient visual rehabilitation with good levels of patient satisfaction and spectacle independence associated in patients that are not primarily good candidates for multifocal IOL implantation.