Cargando…

Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses

AIM: To better understand the phenomenon of dysphotopsia in patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Forty-five patients (aged 61.8±8.9 years) implanted bilaterally with Tecnis ZM900 (diffractive multifocal), Lentis Mplus MF30 (segmented refractive multifocal) or Softec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buckhurst, Phillip J, Naroo, Shehzad A, Davies, Leon N, Shah, Sunil, Drew, Tom, Wolffsohn, James S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721632/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29354708
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2016-000064
_version_ 1783284848399482880
author Buckhurst, Phillip J
Naroo, Shehzad A
Davies, Leon N
Shah, Sunil
Drew, Tom
Wolffsohn, James S
author_facet Buckhurst, Phillip J
Naroo, Shehzad A
Davies, Leon N
Shah, Sunil
Drew, Tom
Wolffsohn, James S
author_sort Buckhurst, Phillip J
collection PubMed
description AIM: To better understand the phenomenon of dysphotopsia in patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Forty-five patients (aged 61.8±8.9 years) implanted bilaterally with Tecnis ZM900 (diffractive multifocal), Lentis Mplus MF30 (segmented refractive multifocal) or Softec-1 (monofocal) IOLs (each n=15) 4–6 months previously and who had achieved a good surgical outcome were examined. Each reported their dysphotopsia symptoms subjectively, identified its form (EyeVisPod illustrations), quantified retinal straylight (C-Quant) and halo perception (Aston halometer). Retinal straylight and halometry was repeated by a second masked clinician to determine interobserver repeatability. RESULTS: Subjective dysphotopsia ratings were able to differentiate Tecnis ZM900 from Lentis Mplus MF30 (p<0.001), but not Lentis Mplus MF30 from groups implanted with Softec-1 (p=0.290). Straylight was similar between the monofocal and multifocal IOL designs (p=0.664). ZM900 IOLs demonstrated a uniform increase in dysphotopsia in comparison with the monofocal IOL (p<0.001) as measured with the halometer, whereas sectorial refractive multifocal IOLs demonstrated a localised increase in dysphotopsia over the inferior visual field. Intraobserver repeatability was good for the straylight (intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC)=0.77) and halometry (ICC=0.89). There was no significant correlation between the subjective dysphotopsia severity and the straylight (p=0.503) or halometry (p>0.10) quantification or between straylight and the halo area (p>0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal IOLs induce symptoms of dysphotopsia. Straylight did not differentiate between IOL designs, however halometry identified clear differences in light scatter due to the IOL optics. Whereas, subjective rating of overall dysphotopsia are not strongly associated with straylight or halo perception, the halometry polar diagram reflected the subjective descriptions of dysphotopsia.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5721632
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57216322018-01-19 Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses Buckhurst, Phillip J Naroo, Shehzad A Davies, Leon N Shah, Sunil Drew, Tom Wolffsohn, James S BMJ Open Ophthalmol Original Article AIM: To better understand the phenomenon of dysphotopsia in patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Forty-five patients (aged 61.8±8.9 years) implanted bilaterally with Tecnis ZM900 (diffractive multifocal), Lentis Mplus MF30 (segmented refractive multifocal) or Softec-1 (monofocal) IOLs (each n=15) 4–6 months previously and who had achieved a good surgical outcome were examined. Each reported their dysphotopsia symptoms subjectively, identified its form (EyeVisPod illustrations), quantified retinal straylight (C-Quant) and halo perception (Aston halometer). Retinal straylight and halometry was repeated by a second masked clinician to determine interobserver repeatability. RESULTS: Subjective dysphotopsia ratings were able to differentiate Tecnis ZM900 from Lentis Mplus MF30 (p<0.001), but not Lentis Mplus MF30 from groups implanted with Softec-1 (p=0.290). Straylight was similar between the monofocal and multifocal IOL designs (p=0.664). ZM900 IOLs demonstrated a uniform increase in dysphotopsia in comparison with the monofocal IOL (p<0.001) as measured with the halometer, whereas sectorial refractive multifocal IOLs demonstrated a localised increase in dysphotopsia over the inferior visual field. Intraobserver repeatability was good for the straylight (intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC)=0.77) and halometry (ICC=0.89). There was no significant correlation between the subjective dysphotopsia severity and the straylight (p=0.503) or halometry (p>0.10) quantification or between straylight and the halo area (p>0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal IOLs induce symptoms of dysphotopsia. Straylight did not differentiate between IOL designs, however halometry identified clear differences in light scatter due to the IOL optics. Whereas, subjective rating of overall dysphotopsia are not strongly associated with straylight or halo perception, the halometry polar diagram reflected the subjective descriptions of dysphotopsia. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5721632/ /pubmed/29354708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2016-000064 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Article
Buckhurst, Phillip J
Naroo, Shehzad A
Davies, Leon N
Shah, Sunil
Drew, Tom
Wolffsohn, James S
Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses
title Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses
title_full Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses
title_fullStr Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses
title_short Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses
title_sort assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721632/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29354708
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2016-000064
work_keys_str_mv AT buckhurstphillipj assessmentofdysphotopsiainpseudophakicsubjectswithmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT narooshehzada assessmentofdysphotopsiainpseudophakicsubjectswithmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT daviesleonn assessmentofdysphotopsiainpseudophakicsubjectswithmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT shahsunil assessmentofdysphotopsiainpseudophakicsubjectswithmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT drewtom assessmentofdysphotopsiainpseudophakicsubjectswithmultifocalintraocularlenses
AT wolffsohnjamess assessmentofdysphotopsiainpseudophakicsubjectswithmultifocalintraocularlenses