&lt;p&gt;Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Implantation of a Secondary Toric Sulcus Intraocular Lenses&lt;/p&gt;

Gundersen, Kjell Gunnar; Potvin, Richard

doi:10.2147/opth.s255725

Cited by 13 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have demonstrated predictable clinical outcomes with both monofocal toric and non-toric configurations, with or without a trifocal component, with no iris chafing. [15][16][17] The spherical IOL is available with a base power of ± 5.0 D, while the toric IOL has a sphere range of ± 3.0 D with from 1.0 to 4.5 D of cylinder at the IOL plane. Power calculations for post-refractive eyes are performed in a standard fashion using the manufacturer's online calculator.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of a Secondary Trifocal Sulcus IOL in Providing Near and Intermediate Vision in Patients with Prior Myopic Laser Vision Correction and Cataract Surgery

Gundersen¹,

Gjerdrum²,

Potvin³

2022

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the visual function of patients with a history of prior laser vision correction and cataract surgery with implantation of a monofocal primary IOL after subsequent implantation of a secondary sulcus trifocal intraocular lens (IOL). Setting One clinical practice in Haugesund, Norway. Design Prospective, single arm, non-interventional unmasked study. Methods Eligible subjects who had previous laser vision correction and cataract surgery involving implantation of a monofocal IOL in the capsular bag of one or both eyes were subsequently implanted with a secondary IOL in the sulcus. Postoperative uncorrected and best distance-corrected visual acuities (VAs) were measured at distance (4 m), intermediate (60 cm), and near (40 cm), along with low contrast visual acuity and the monocular distance corrected defocus curve. Results Twenty-five eyes were evaluated from 7 to 24 months after trifocal implantation. The mean monocular uncorrected VAs were 0.06, 0.21 and 0.10 logMAR at distance, intermediate and near, respectively. Uncorrected near VA was 0.2 logMAR or better in 80% of eyes (20/25). VA of 0.2 logMAR or better at all test distances was achieved in 15/25 eyes (60%) in the uncorrected state and 17/25 eyes (68%) when corrected for distance vision. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.1 logMAR or better in all subjects while binocular uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.1 logMAR or better in all but one subject. The defocus curve showed a range of functional vision from distance to 30 cm. No adverse events were identified. Conclusion The trifocal sulcus IOL provided excellent distance and near vision and a good range of functional vision, similar to results obtained when a primary trifocal IOL is implanted. It is a viable option to provide better intermediate and near vision to patients with a prior history of refractive surgery and a monofocal IOL implanted.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of a Secondary Trifocal Sulcus IOL in Providing Near and Intermediate Vision in Patients with Prior Myopic Laser Vision Correction and Cataract Surgery

Gundersen¹,

Gjerdrum²,

Potvin³

2022

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The physiological performance of the lens in the sulcus was consistent with results reported previously for other versions of the lens (monofocal, monofocal toric, multifocal). 9 , 11 , 19 Interlenticular opacification, deposits and iris depigmentation, potential issues with a secondary IOL, were not observed. Results here appear as good or better than reported for an aggregate data set of several different sulcus lenses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…The base lens design has been shown to provide stable clinical outcomes in both a spherical and toric configuration. 9 , 11 A trifocal version of the lens has also been shown to provide good clinical outcomes. 19 In the EDOF design, four diffractive rings configured using a proprietary design (elevated phase shift, or EPS) are used to extend the depth of focus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Implantation of a Secondary Sulcus Intraocular Lens with an Extended Depth of Focus

Gundersen¹,

Potvin²

2022

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the range of vision, visual function, and quality of vision after implantation of a secondary extended depth of focus intraocular lens (EDOF IOL) implanted in the sulcus. Setting One clinical practice in Haugesund, Norway. Design Prospective single arm non-interventional study. Methods Eligible subjects presenting for surgery, or who had previous successful primary cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery in both eyes were subsequently implanted with the AddOn® secondary EDOF IOL in the sulcus. Manifest refraction and visual acuity at distance, intermediate and near were measured 3 months after surgery, along with the monocular defocus curve. Subjects also completed a visual function and a quality of vision questionnaire. Results The study included 32 eyes of 16 subjects. At 3 months postoperative, the mean refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) was −0.16 ± 0.30 D, with a residual cylinder of 0.29 ± 0.27 D. The mean monocular uncorrected VA was 0.1 logMAR (20/25) or better at all test distances. The monocular defocus curves showed a depth of focus of 2.0 D. For every category except reading fine print, all but one subject (94%) had no difficulty or little difficulty with near tasks. Glare and halos were the most common visual disturbances, with no reports of starbursts. There was no evidence of any intralenticular opacification in any of the eyes, and no evidence of iris chafing/depigmentation. Conclusion This secondary EDOF IOL provided excellent distance and intermediate vision, and very good near vision to subjects. Subject reported near visual function was also very good and visual disturbances were limited. This lens appears to be a good option for patients who would like to improve their range of vision. Results appear as good or better than those reported for primary EDOF lenses.

show abstract

“…The implantation of a secondary lens (AddOn® lens) is a very good solution because sicca syndrome post-Lasik is avoided in elderly patients. Grundersen and Potvin [ 25 ] have examined the eyes for more than 3 years after AddOn® implantation and did not find intralenticular opacification and pigment dispersion. So far, none of the patients from PMV has been post-treated for a refractive error.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial monovision achieved by unilateral implantation of a multifocal add-on lens with bilateral pseudophakia: evaluation and results

Knecht

Colosi

Hassenstein

2022

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the results of partial monovision (PMV) in comparison to a bilateral monofocal implantation (MMV). Methods The PMV group was treated bilaterally with a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, followed 3 months later by the implantation of a multifocal AddOn® lens (+ 3.00 D) into the non-dominant eye. The MMV group received a bilateral monofocal IOL implantation intending to achieve a slight anisometropia (0.0 D/ − 0.50 D). The near visual acuity (UNVA), intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), distance visual acuity (UDVA), defocus curve, and Lang-Stereotest II were conducted uncorrected, binocular, and minimum 3 months after the last operation. For the contrast sensitivity test, the patients were refractively corrected. The Quality of Vision Questionnaire (QoV), Visual Function Questionnaire (VF-14), spectacle independence, and general satisfaction were also assessed. Results A total of 27 PMV patients and 28 MMV patients without ocular diseases relevant to visual acuity were examined. The PMV group was significantly better at UNVA (0.11 ± 0.08 logMAR vs 0.56 ± 0.16 logMAR) and between − 2.00 and − 4.00 D in the defocus curve (p < 0.001). At the UIVA, the PMV group was slightly better (0.11 ± 0.10 logMAR vs 0.20 ± 0.18 logMAR) but not significant (p = 0.054). The UDVA (− 0.13 ± 0.09 logMAR vs − 0.09 ± 0.14 logMAR) (p = 0.315) and contrast sensitivity (p = 0.667) revealed no differences between the groups. The stereo vision was in favor of PMV (p = 0.008). Spectacle independence was statistically better for PMV at distance, intermediate, and near (distance p = 0.012; intermediate p < 0.001; near p < 0.001). In the VF-14 Questionnaire, the PMV was statistically superior (p < 0.001). The QoV Questionnaire showed no differences regarding frequency and severity of visual disturbances. Both groups were highly satisfied (p = 0.509). Conclusion Patients with PMV are more independent of glasses and are able to read without disadvantages in distance vision, due to halos and glare. The concept of PMV is well suited for the desire of eyeglass independence, without optical side effects.

show abstract

<p>Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Implantation of a Secondary Toric Sulcus Intraocular Lenses</p>

Cited by 13 publications

References 25 publications

Efficacy of a Secondary Trifocal Sulcus IOL in Providing Near and Intermediate Vision in Patients with Prior Myopic Laser Vision Correction and Cataract Surgery

Efficacy of a Secondary Trifocal Sulcus IOL in Providing Near and Intermediate Vision in Patients with Prior Myopic Laser Vision Correction and Cataract Surgery

Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Implantation of a Secondary Sulcus Intraocular Lens with an Extended Depth of Focus

Partial monovision achieved by unilateral implantation of a multifocal add-on lens with bilateral pseudophakia: evaluation and results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About