Posters

Individualized patient care: comparison of different variants of blended vision with rotational asymmetric multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOL)

Poster Details

First Author: S. Hübsch GERMANY

Co Author(s): D. Breyer   H. Kaymak   K. Klabe   P. Hagen   F. Kretz   G. Auffarth     

Abstract Details

Purpose:

The aim of this retrospective quality management investigation was to compare binocular visual outcomes between different variants of bilaterally implanted segmental MIOLs (Oculentis). Thereby we compared emmetropic vision with blended vision variants.

Setting:

All MIOL implantations were performed at the Breyer-Kaymak-Klabe Eyesurgery in Duesseldorf, Germany, which is part of the International Vision Correcton Research Center (IVCRC.net).

Methods:

The 4 variants were (MIOL in the non-dominant eye): a) Comfort with 1.5D additon (300 patients), b) Comfort with 1.5D additon and -1.5D target refraction (100 patients), c) Comfort with 2.0D addition and -1.0D target refraction (25 patients), d) MplusX with 3.0D addition (25 patients). Results for subjective refraction and visual acuity were evaluated. Additionally, we analzyed binocular defocus curves and compared the area under these curves (MIOL-capacity) to those of phakic patients. Furthermore, we correlated monocular defocus curves to MTF-focus-through curves. Halo and glare was assessed with a computer based system. Contrast sensitivity was measured with the Ginsburg box.

Results:

Compared to phakic juvenile eyes, all 4 MIOL varaints showed binocular defocus capacities above 85% with variant b) achieving the hightest value: 104%. Mean binocular UDVA was <0.05LogMAR in all groups. After 3 months, photopsia were either absent or described as undisturbing. Contrast vision was better than in other bi- or trifocal MIOLs.

Conclusions:

MIOL-capacity showed results competitive to trifocal IOLs. The mixed implantation of two different refractive MIOL creates blended vision and seems to provide a new alternative to a diffractive trifocal IOL.

Financial Disclosure:

receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company