14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Causes and correction of dissatisfaction after implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The purpose of this study was to assess the causes and possible solutions for patient dissatisfaction after the implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs).

          Methods

          This study was a retrospective review of clinical records. All patients who were seen between January 2009 and December 2013 whose primary reason for consultation was dissatisfaction with visual performance after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation were included in the study. A single treating physician, who determined the most probable cause of dissatisfaction, decided which interventions to pursue following the initial consultation.

          Results

          Data from 74 eyes of 49 patients were analyzed. The most common cause for complaint was blurry or foggy vision both for distance and near (68%). Complaints were most frequently attributed to residual refractive error (57%) and dry eye (35%). The most common interventions pursued were treatment of refractive error with glasses or contact lenses (46%) and treatment for dry eye (24%). Corneal laser vision correction was done in 8% of eyes; 7% required an IOL exchange. After the interventions, 45% of patients had completed resolution of symptoms, 23% of patients were partially satisfied with the results, and 32% remained completely dissatisfied with the final results.

          Conclusion

          The most identifiable causes of dissatisfaction after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation are residual refractive error and dry eye. Most patients can be managed with conservative treatment, though a significant number of patients remained unsatisfied despite multiple measures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dissatisfaction after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses.

          To analyze the symptoms, etiology, and treatment of patient dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Department of Ophthalmology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands. Case series. In this retrospective chart review, the main outcome measures were type of complaints, uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuities, uncorrected and distance-corrected near visual acuities, refractive state, pupil diameter and wavefront aberrometry measurements, and type of treatment. Seventy-six eyes of 49 patients were included. Blurred vision (with or without photic phenomenon) was reported in 72 eyes (94.7%) and photic phenomena (with or without blurred vision) in 29 eyes (38.2%). Both symptoms were present in 25 eyes (32.9%). Residual ametropia and astigmatism, posterior capsule opacification, and a large pupil were the 3 most significant etiologies. Sixty-four eyes (84.2%) were amenable to therapy, with refractive surgery, spectacles, and laser capsulotomy the most frequent treatment modalities. Intraocular lens exchange was performed in 3 cases (4.0%). The cause of dissatisfaction after implantation of a multifocal IOL can be identified and effective treatment measures taken in most cases. Copyright © 2011 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

            To analyze the reasons for patient dissatisfaction after phacoemulsification with multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and the outcomes after intervention. Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. This retrospective review comprised eyes of patients dissatisfied with visual outcomes after multifocal IOL implantation. Outcomes analyzed included type of visual complaint, treatment modality for each complaint, and degree of clinical improvement after intervention. Thirty-two patients (43 eyes) reported unwanted visual symptoms after multifocal IOL implantation, including in 28 eyes (65%) with an AcrySof ReSTOR IOL and 15 (35%) with a ReZoom IOL. Thirty patients (41 eyes) reported blurred vision, 15 (18 eyes) reported photic phenomena, and 13 (16 eyes) reported both. Causes of blurred vision included ametropia (12 eyes, 29%), dry eye syndrome (6 eyes, 15%), posterior capsule opacification (PCO) (22 eyes, 54%), and unexplained etiology (1 eye, 2%). Causes of photic phenomena included IOL decentration (2 eyes, 12%), retained lens fragment (1 eye, 6%), PCO (12 eyes, 66%), dry-eye syndrome (1 eye, 2%), and unexplained etiology (2 eyes, 11%). Photic phenomena attributed to PCO also caused blurred vision. Thirty-five eyes (81%) had improvement with conservative treatment. Five eyes (12%) did not have improvement despite treatment combinations. Three eyes (7%) required IOL exchange. Complaints of blurred vision and photic phenomena after multifocal IOL implantation were effectively managed with appropriate treatment. Few eyes (7%) required IOL exchange. Neodymium:YAG capsulotomy should be delayed until it has been determined that IOL exchange will not be necessary.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Incidence and Pattern of Dry Eye after Cataract Surgery

              Purpose To evaluate the incidence and severity pattern of dry eye after phacoemulsification. Setting King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Design Prospective descriptive study. Methods Samples were collected from ninety-two uncomplicated cataract patients who were 18 years old or older. Dry eye incidence and pattern were analyzed at days 0, 7, 30 and 90 after phacoemulsification using (1) Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, (2) tear break up time (TBUT), (3) Oxford ocular surface staining system, and (4) Schirmer I test without anesthesia. Results Seven days after phacoemulsification, the incidence of dry eye was 9.8% (95% confidence interval; 3.6–16.0%). The severity of dry eye peaked seven days post-phacoemulsification and was measured by OSDI questionnaire and all three clinical tests. Within thirty days and 3 months post-surgery, both the symptoms and signs showed rapid and gradual improvements, respectively. However, dry eye post-phacoemulsification was not significantly associated with sex and systemic hypertension (P = 0.26, 0.17 and 0.73, respectively). Conclusions The incidence of dry eye after phacoemulsification was 9.8%. Symptoms and signs of dry eye occurred as early as seven days post-phacoemulsification and the severity pattern improved over time. We recommend that ophthalmologists should evaluate patients both before and after phacoemulsification to prevent further damage to the ocular surface and able to manage the patient promptly and effectively so the patient will not have a poor quality of life and vision due to dry eye syndrome.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Ophthalmol
                Clin Ophthalmol
                Clinical Ophthalmology
                Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)
                Dove Medical Press
                1177-5467
                1177-5483
                2016
                11 October 2016
                : 10
                : 1965-1970
                Affiliations
                Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Kendall E Donaldson, Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 3rd Floor, Crossroads Business Park Building 3, Plantation, FL 33324, USA, Tel +1 954 465 2700, Fax +1 954 465 2725, Email kdonaldson@ 123456med.miami.edu
                Article
                opth-10-1965
                10.2147/OPTH.S114890
                5066995
                27784985
                e0d33c51-c798-465f-a345-6533122da251
                © 2016 Gibbons et al. 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.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                intraocular lens,cataract,presbyopia,multifocal intraocular lens
                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                intraocular lens, cataract, presbyopia, multifocal intraocular lens

                Comments

                Comment on this article