Clinical Outcomes of Unilateral Implantation of Diffractive Multifocal IOL in Patients With Contralateral Monofocal IOL

Tchah, Hungwon

Clinical Outcomes of Unilateral Implantation of Diffractive Multifocal IOL in Patients With Contralateral Monofocal IOL

Sunday, April 27, 2014: 8:06 AM

Room 150 (Boston Convention and Exhibition Center)

Hungwon Tchah, MD, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, Republic of

Hunjae Won, MD, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea

In Seok Song, MD, Asan medical center, Seoul, Korea, Seoul, South Korea

Jin Hyoung Park, MD, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Seoul, South Korea

Jong Hoon Park, MD, Asan medical center, Seoul, South Korea

Jae Yong Kim, MD, PhD, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea

Myoung Joon Kim, MD, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, Republic of

Narrative Responses:

Purpose
To evaluate clinical outcomes - near and distant visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, subjective visual symptoms, and satisfaction grade of unilateral implantation of diffractive multifocal IOL in patients with contralateral monofocal IOL.

Methods
Diffractive multifocal IOLs (Tecnis ZMB00, Abbott medial optics, USA) were implanted in fellow-eye of 19 Patients who previously received monocular, monofocal IOL implantation. Uncorrected and distant-corrected near, intermediate, distant visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured and subjective visual symptoms(glare, halo), whether or not patients wore glasses, and satisfaction grade were analyzed at 1 month post-op.

Results
Average uncorrected distant and near VA were 0.2±0.13 (logMAR), 0.35±0.12 (logMAR) in multifocal eyes and 0.15±0.13 (logMAR), 0.52±0.20 (logMAR) in monofocal eyes, respectively. Average uncorrected binocular distant and near VA were 0.13±0.13 (logMAR), 0.37±0.15 (logMAR), and distant-corrected distant and near VA were 0.04±0.07 (logMAR), 0.29±0.18 (logMAR). Contrast sensitivity was lower in eye with multifocal IOL than in eye with monofocal eye. Patients were satisfied with the result in 78.9% (15/19) and 3 patients were unsatisfied because of night halo. One patient was unsatisfied due to waxy vision. Patients did not need reading glasses in 72.2% (13/18).

Conclusion
Unilateral implantation of multifocal IOL in patients with contralateral, monofocal IOL implantation showed relatively high patients satisfaction rate considering short follow-up period. It seems that combined implantation of multifocal and monofocal IOL could be a good option in patient who had a monofocal IOL implantation previously.