Cargando…

Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes, quality of vision and patient satisfaction between a blended apodized diffractive bifocal lens combination and bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects implanted with either the blended bifocal (B...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hammond, Matthew D, Potvin, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6885543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31819357
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S232800
_version_ 1783474752135888896
author Hammond, Matthew D
Potvin, Richard
author_facet Hammond, Matthew D
Potvin, Richard
author_sort Hammond, Matthew D
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes, quality of vision and patient satisfaction between a blended apodized diffractive bifocal lens combination and bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects implanted with either the blended bifocal (Blended) or bilateral extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL combinations were examined 3 to 24 months after second eye surgery. The primary outcome measure was the patient’s best distance-corrected near visual acuity (VA) at 40cm. The secondary outcome measures were scores on the Quality of Vision Survey, the Catquest-9SF and the Visual Functioning Questionnaires, uncorrected binocular intermediate and near VA at 4–6m, 60cm and 40cm, the manifest refraction and the best-corrected monocular and binocular distance VA. RESULTS: Twenty-five EDOF subjects and 23 blended subjects were analyzed. The uncorrected and best-distance corrected intermediate VA was statistically significantly better in the EDOF group (p < 0.05); no other significant differences were noted at distance or near. The EDOF group had significantly higher percentage of patients having no difficulty with hobbies and handicrafts (p < 0.05). Eighty-seven percent of the blended subjects and 79% of the EDOF subjects were “very” or “fairly” satisfied with their vision (p = 0.52). The frequency, severity and degree of bother from visual disturbances were comparable between the two groups; however, more subjects in the EDOF group reported severe disturbances (36% vs 4%). CONCLUSION: Distance and near VA are similar with both IOL designs, but intermediate VA was better with the EDOF IOL resulting in lower difficulty with intermediate tasks such as hobbies and handicrafts. Despite the difference at intermediate VA, satisfaction was similar between the two groups and there were greater reports of severe visual disturbances in the EDOF group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6885543
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68855432019-12-09 Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation Hammond, Matthew D Potvin, Richard Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes, quality of vision and patient satisfaction between a blended apodized diffractive bifocal lens combination and bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects implanted with either the blended bifocal (Blended) or bilateral extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL combinations were examined 3 to 24 months after second eye surgery. The primary outcome measure was the patient’s best distance-corrected near visual acuity (VA) at 40cm. The secondary outcome measures were scores on the Quality of Vision Survey, the Catquest-9SF and the Visual Functioning Questionnaires, uncorrected binocular intermediate and near VA at 4–6m, 60cm and 40cm, the manifest refraction and the best-corrected monocular and binocular distance VA. RESULTS: Twenty-five EDOF subjects and 23 blended subjects were analyzed. The uncorrected and best-distance corrected intermediate VA was statistically significantly better in the EDOF group (p < 0.05); no other significant differences were noted at distance or near. The EDOF group had significantly higher percentage of patients having no difficulty with hobbies and handicrafts (p < 0.05). Eighty-seven percent of the blended subjects and 79% of the EDOF subjects were “very” or “fairly” satisfied with their vision (p = 0.52). The frequency, severity and degree of bother from visual disturbances were comparable between the two groups; however, more subjects in the EDOF group reported severe disturbances (36% vs 4%). CONCLUSION: Distance and near VA are similar with both IOL designs, but intermediate VA was better with the EDOF IOL resulting in lower difficulty with intermediate tasks such as hobbies and handicrafts. Despite the difference at intermediate VA, satisfaction was similar between the two groups and there were greater reports of severe visual disturbances in the EDOF group. Dove 2019-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6885543/ /pubmed/31819357 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S232800 Text en © 2019 Hammond and Potvin. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Hammond, Matthew D
Potvin, Richard
Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation
title Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation
title_full Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation
title_fullStr Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation
title_full_unstemmed Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation
title_short Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation
title_sort visual outcomes, visual quality and patient satisfaction: comparing a blended bifocal approach to bilateral extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6885543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31819357
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S232800
work_keys_str_mv AT hammondmatthewd visualoutcomesvisualqualityandpatientsatisfactioncomparingablendedbifocalapproachtobilateralextendeddepthoffocusintraocularlensimplantation
AT potvinrichard visualoutcomesvisualqualityandpatientsatisfactioncomparingablendedbifocalapproachtobilateralextendeddepthoffocusintraocularlensimplantation