June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Patient profile and outcomes regarding intraocular lens type selection in presbyopic hispanic population
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Miguel Angel Hernandez-Delgado
    Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
  • Marcelo Salan-Gomez
    Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
  • Salvador Garza-Gonzalez
    Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
  • Monica Ivonne Herrera-Rodiguez
    Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
  • Sergio Eduardo Guevara-Quintanilla
    Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
  • Jorge Eugenio Valdez-Garcia
    Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Miguel Hernandez-Delgado, None; Marcelo Salan-Gomez, None; Salvador Garza-Gonzalez, None; Monica Ivonne Herrera-Rodiguez, None; Sergio Eduardo Guevara-Quintanilla, None; Jorge Eugenio Valdez-Garcia, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 582. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Miguel Angel Hernandez-Delgado, Marcelo Salan-Gomez, Salvador Garza-Gonzalez, Monica Ivonne Herrera-Rodiguez, Sergio Eduardo Guevara-Quintanilla, Jorge Eugenio Valdez-Garcia; Patient profile and outcomes regarding intraocular lens type selection in presbyopic hispanic population. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):582.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To describe the patient's profile regarding intraocular lens (IOL) selection, either multifocal or monofocal. And their differences in age, sex, ocular surgery, IOL power and visual acuities.

Methods : Evaluation of 34 randomly selected presbyopic patients that underwent phaco with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, 17 with multifocal lens (group 1; G1) and the rest with monofocal lens (group 2; G2) in 2020 at Zambrano Hellion Medical Center, Tecnologico de Monterrey. Patients were evaluated for age, sex, previous ocular or refractive surgery, time from surgery proposal to IOL implantation (TSPTI), time to fellow eye surgery, LogMAR preoperative best uncorrected visual acuity (BUVA) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), IOL power, tenth day postoperative visual acuity (VA10), and wether residual ametropia was present.

Results : From the total 34 patients, 52.9% (n= 18) were female and 47.06% (n= 16) male. Mean age at surgery was 62.55 ± 11.04 years, 59.35 ± 8.06 for G1 and 65.76 ± 12.83 for G2 (p= 0.09). Of all records, 26.4% (n= 9) had previous ocular surgery, 23.5% in G1 and 29.4% of G2 (p= 0.70), but six had previous refractive surgery, 17.6% in G1 and 17.6% in G2 (p= 1.0).
TSPTI was 46 median IQR days, 51 days in G1 and 35 days in G2 (p= 0.18). Half (n= 17, 64.7% of G1 and 35.29% of G2) of patients had fellow eye surgery in 35 MdnIQR days, 35 days for G1 and 40 days for G2 (p= 0.51).
BUVA before surgery was 0.5 MdnIQR with a preoperative BCVA of 0.1 MdnIQR. G1 had better BUVA (0.4, p= 0.015) and BCVA (0, p= 0.0007) in comparison to G2 BUVA (0.9) and BCVA (0.3).
Mean IOL power was 21.50 ± 4.3 D. IOL power was greater (p= 0.017) in G1 (mean SD 22.75 ± 3.6 D) than in G2 (mean SD 19.93 ± 4.6 D).
The sample VA10 was 0 MdnIQR. G1 had better (p= 0.036) VA10 (0) compared to G2 (0.2).
Residual ametropia was found in 9 patients, 10.7% in G1 and 26.1% in G2 (p= 0.15).

Conclusions : Age, sex and previous surgeries were not significant between groups. G2 had a tendency to have a faster TSPTI, but a slower time to fellow eye surgery. G1 had significantly better BUVA and BCVA preoperatively, as well as better VA10 than G2 with less incidence of residual ametropia, at the expense of greater IOL power requirement. IOL type selection is due to the patients perspective and desire to achieve the best possible visual acuity.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

 

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×