Retrospective study of an extended-depth-of-focus IOL in the presence of glaucoma compared to a control group without glaucoma

Session Details

Session Title: Combined Cataract Surgery & Practice Styles

Session Date/Time: Sunday 15/09/2019 | 14:00-16:00

Paper Time: 14:30

Venue: Free Paper Forum: Podium 2

First Author: : K.Waltz USA

Co Author(s): :    J. Odette   B. Wahl                          

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To determine the relative effect on distance acuity, near visual acuity when using an extended depth of focus lens in the presence of glaucoma.

Setting:

Single site private practice

Methods:

Retrospective review of 711 eyes of 462 subjects with an extended depth of focus IOL implanted from September 2016 - May 2018 in a single private practice. Eyes were divided into groups including normal eyes and eyes with a diagnosis of glaucoma. Glaucoma was graded by a masked, anterior segment surgeon. 616 eyes were normal and 95 had a diagnosis of glaucoma. Final visual acuities and outcomes were compared between normal eyes and eyes with glaucoma. Uncorrected acuities were recorded at distance and near as well as best corrected acuity at distance for all patients at two months post-operatively.

Results:

Mean UCNVA in normal vs. glaucoma eyes was 0.069 vs. 0.101 LogMAR respectively. Mean BCDVA in normal vs. glaucoma eyes was 0.025 vs. 0.031 LogMAR respectively. Neither of these was statistically significant. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in UCNVA in normal vs. glaucoma eyes with J4 (0.20 LogMAR) or better being achieved 95% of the time in each group and J1 (0.0 LogMAR) or better being achieved 42% vs. 38% of the time, respectively.

Conclusions:

Use of an extended depth of focus IOL in the presence of glaucoma results in no statistically significant difference in acuity outcomes when compared to normal eyes and is therefore a good option for patients desiring spectacle independence in the presence of concurrent glaucoma.

Financial Disclosure:

is employed by a competing company, research is 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, receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented