Comparative visual outcome and quality of life between bilateral aspheric diffractive

download report

Transcript Comparative visual outcome and quality of life between bilateral aspheric diffractive

Comparative visual outcome and
quality of life between
bilateral aspheric diffractive
ReSTOR® with addition 4D versus 3D,
or mix-match implantation.
M-A. BIGOU, B. COCHENER
FRANCE
Financial interest code E : My travel expenses have been reimbursed, paid in full or subsidized, by
a company that makes/develops/provides ophthalmic products or services (Alcon).
POPULATION

42 patients (84 eyes)

Mean age 50 +/- 5 years

Patent presbyopia : addition +2.5 to +3 D

All of them expected independancy of spectacles

Lensectomy : december 2007 to december 2008

3 groups :

Bilateral diffractive Restor®AD1 (+3) (ALCON) = 20 eyes

Bilateral diffractive Restor®AD3 (+4) (ALCON) = 40 eyes

Mix-Match diffractive Tecnis ® (AMO) and in the
dominant eye refractive Rezoom ® (AMO) = 24 eyes
EVALUATION ( 5 +/- 1.5 months post-surgery)


Visual acuities

without correction, binocular

Distance, intermediate and near.
Quality of vision

Functional signs : dysphotopsy (halo, glare…), satisfaction rate

Contrast sensitivity (static, mesopic) +/- glare


PC software « EyeVis Pod » for the quality of vision study and
visual performance score
Defocus
IOL REFRACTIVE / DIFFRACTIVE

REZOOM (AMO) : non absorbent acrylic

Refractive , 5 zones with aspheric transition,
optiedge

Addition +4D

Incision 2.8mm

TECNIS (AMO) : non absorbent acrylic

Diffractive on the posterior side, aspheric on
the anterior side

Addition +4D

Incision 2.8mm

RESTOR (ALCON) :

Joint optical : diffractive in the central 3.6mm
and refractive in the periphery, apodisation
included

Addition +4D (AD3) and recently +3D (AD1)

Incision 2mm
RESULTS : Visual Acuity
Diffractive Diffractive
bilateral
bilateral
ReStor AD1 ReStor AD3
87.5%
Distance >20/25
20/40-20/25 12.5%
VA
<20/40
0%
Mix -Match
Rezoom /
Tecnis
73%
27%
0%
81%
19%
0%
Intermediate VA
>20/25
85%
20/40-20/25 10%
<20/25
5%
30%
31%
39%
86%
13%
1%
Near
VA
P2
100%
80%
100%
: Do need accasional wear of spectacles
: Increase to 85% after excimer treatment for residual ametropia
Results : dysphotopsy
%
33
35
28
30
25
20
halo
18
20
14
15
10
10
5
0
ReStor AD1
ReStor AD3
Mix-Match
glare
Results : contrast sensitivity
STATIC
30
ReStor AD1 and Mix-Match better
than AD3 in high spatial frequency
(= higher visual discrimination)
25
20
15
MESOPIC
restor D3
10
30
restor D1
5
25
0
1
2
3
4
5
mix-match
réf phake
GLARE
20
15
10
moy inf
30
5
25
moy sup
0
1
2
3
4
5
20
15
Mix-Match seems to be lightly
better compared with bilateral
diffractive implantation for
mesopic and with glare contrast
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
PC platform for vision quality evaluation
Results : Visual Performance
Reading Test :
70
Fluence and
Comprehension
60
50
score < 40 pts /100
40
40 pts < score < 60 pts /100
30
score > 60 pts /100
20
10
0
restor AD3
restor AD1
%
mix-match
Satisfaction rate
85
90
75
for intermediate vision
activities (PC test)
80
70
60
50
37,5
37,5
40
good
very good
25
25
30
15
20
0
10
0
0
restor AD3
restor AD1
mix-match
excellent
Defocus
Log
1,2
1
0,8
restor D3
restor D1
0,6
mix-match
0,4
ref phake
0,2
0
-1
-2
0
+1
+2
DISCUSSION / litterature data

Deterioration of the quality of life when presbyopia appears

Luo BP, Brown MM. The quality of life associated with presbyopia. Am J Ophthalmol 2008
apr;145(4):618-622.

No way to recover acommodation but only to compensate it,
with unperfect results :
 Spectacles / contact lenses
 Presbylasik
 Accommodative IOL / multifocal IOL

Mix-match requires neuro-adaptation but allows better visual
performances at all distance vision.

Eye Q Report. ESCRS. 2006 oct 3rd

Goes FJ. Visual results following implantation of a refractive multifocal IOL in one eye and a diffractive multifocal IOL in the
contralateral eye. J Refr Surg 2008 mar;24(3):300-5

Gunenc U, Celik L. Long term experience with mixing and matching refractive array and diffractive CeeOn multifocal IOL. J
Refr Surg 2008 mar;24(3):233-42
CONCLUSION

Restor AD1 seems to give a better depth of focus compared
with Restor AD3 and better visual performances than MixMatch implantation.

Further investigations have to be driven , increasing the
number of patients and including other methods for
presbyopia compensation or restoration.

Specific care required for patients selection , according to
preoperative ametropia and to their way of life , in order to
select the best « custom implantation »