Posters

Dysphotopsia in patients implanted with segmental bifocal intraocular lenses

Poster Details

First Author: S. Shah UNITED KINGDOM

Co Author(s):    J. Wolffsohn   S. Naroo   L. Davies   T. Drew   E. Berrow   R. Gil-Cazorla     

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To understand and quantify the phenomenon of dysphotopsia in patients implanted with segmental bifocal intraocular lenses and compare to monofocal and diffractive multifocal lenses

Setting:

Private ambulatory care centre

Methods:

Forty-five patients (aged 61.8±8.9 years) implanted bilaterally with Tecnis ZM900 (diffractive multifocal), SBL-3 (segmented refractive multifocal) or Softec-1 (monofocal) IOLs (each n=15) 4-6 months previously were examined. Each reported their dysphotopsia symptoms subjectively, identified its form (EyeVisPod illustrations) and halo perception (Aston Halometer).

Results:

Tecnis ZM900 IOLs demonstrated a uniform increase in dysphotopsia in comparison with the monofocal IOL (p<0.001) as measured with the halometer, whereas SBL-3 sectorial refractive multifocal IOLs demonstrated a localized increase in dysphotopsia over the inferior visual field. There was no significant correlation between the subjective dysphotopsia severity and the halometry (p>0.10) quantification.

Conclusions:

There is a significant difference between halometry for the Tecnis diffractive multifocal lens compared to the segmental multifocal SBL-3.

Financial Disclosure:

One or more of the authors gains financially from product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company, One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented