J.ophthalmol.(Ukraine).2021;2:23-30.
http://doi.org/10.31288/oftalmolzh202122330
Received: 04 February 2020; Published on-line: 19 April 2021
Comparing the efficacy of monofocal and multicfocal IOLs in phacoemulsification of cataract in eyes with high myopia
N. G. Zavgorodnia1,3, N. V. Mykhailenko1,3, L. E. Sarzhevska1, T. S. Zavgorodnia2,3, A. S. Sarzhevskii1,3
1 Zaporizhzhia State Medical University, Zaporizhzhia (Ukraine)
2 Shupyk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kyiv (Ukraine)
3 VISUS clinic, Zaporizhzhia (Ukraine)
E-mail: doc.mikhaylenko89@gmail.com
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Zavgorodnia NG, Mykhailenko NV, Sarzhevska LE, Zavgorodnia TS, Sarzhevskii AS. Comparing the efficacy of monofocal and multicfocal IOLs in phacoemulsification of cataract in eyes with high myopia. J.ophthalmol.(Ukraine).2021;2:23-30. http://doi.org/10.31288/oftalmolzh202122330
Background: High myopia is a factor that complicates and may affect the visual outcome of phacoemulsification of cataract. There is no agreement among ophthalmologists as to whether it is appropriate to implant a multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in high myopia. Such doubts are caused by frequent complications in the fundus which cannot be found before surgery, leading to the impossibility of an accurate postoperative visual prognosis. However, the patient’s desire to improve vision does not allow abandoning the idea of implanting a multifocal lens in eyes with high myopia.
Purpose: To compare treatment outcomes among eyes with high myopia which underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of monofocal versus multifocal IOLs.
Material and Methods: We reviewed the visual outcomes of 55 patients (93 eyes) with high myopia who had undergone phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. Study eyes were divided into two groups depending on the type of IOL implanted. Group A included 22 patients (38 eyes) with a multifocal IOL implanted. In this group, there were 11 women (55%) and 9 men (45%), and patient age ranged from 29 years to 73 years (mean age, 52 ± 2.9 years). Group B included 32 patients (55 eyes) with a monofocal IOL implanted. In this group, there were 18 women (51.4%) and 16 men (48.6%), and patient aged ranged from 32 years to 78 years (mean age, 58 ± 2.1 years). Preoperatively, patients underwent a routine eye examination which included automated refraction, visual acuity, perimetry, Amsler test, phosphene test, tonometry, biomicroscopy, direct ophthalmoscopy, and, if possible, retinal examination using a Goldmann lens. In addition, they underwent a special examination for the patients being prepared for phaco plus IOL implantation which included ultrasound A- and B-scanning (Alcon; USA), optical biometry (IOL Master 700 - Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany), and endothelial microscopy (SP-3000P, Topcon Corporation, Japan). The Haigis and SRK-T formulas were used for IOL calculation.
Results: At one month after phacoemulsification, eyes in both groups showed improved visual acuity. In the eyes of group A, mean uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) increased by 76% to 0.8 ± 0.03 and mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), by 86% to 0.9±0.02, whereas mean Sph and mean Cyl values were -0.06 ± 0.08 D and -0.59 ± 0.15 D, respectively. In the eyes of group B, UCVA increased by 49% to 0.55 ± 0.02 and mean BCVA, by 78% to 0.84±0.02, whereas mean Sph and mean Cyl values were -0.85 ± 0.11 D and -0.94 ± 0.12 D, respectively. These results maintained for six months, and the difference between values at month 1 and month 6 was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) for all cases. After phacoemulsification and IOL implantation, in the eyes of group A, mean spherical component decreased by 12.88 ± 0.2 D to -0.22±0.11 D, whereas mean cylindrical component decreased by 1.0 ± 0.1 D to -0.8 ± 0.1 D as assessed by autoreftactometry. In addition, at one month, in the eyes of group B, mean spherical component decreased by 12.63 ± 0.12 D to -0.84 ± 0.02 D, and approached a target value, whereas a change in a cylindrical component was not statistically significant. The eyes with an implanted multifocal IOL were found to be well adapted to near work and showed a mean near vision acuity of 0.9 ± 0.1 versus 0.6 ± 0.1 for the eyes with an implanted monofocal IOL. Aberrations were significantly less in group A than in group B.
Conclusion: First, among the eyes with high myopia, the percentage increase in uncorrected visual acuity was larger in those with an implanted multifocal IOL (76%) than in those with an implanted monofocal IOL (49%), and the difference was significant (р < 0.05). Second, the increase in near visual acuity was by 33% larger in those with an implanted multifocal IOL than in those with an implanted monofocal IOL, which significantly improved their quality of life, enabling them to quit wearing their glasses. Finally, our findings demonstrate that high myopia is not a contraindication for implanting a multifocal IOL.
Keywords: High myopia, phacoemulsification of cataracts, multifocal IOL, monofocal IOL
References
1.Resnikova EV. [Phacoemulsification in eyes with high myopia]. [Cand Sc (Med) Thesis]. Moscow: Helmholtz Research Institute for Eye Diseases; 2005. Russian. Available at: https://www.dissercat.com/content/fakoemulsifikatsiya-katarakty-pri-bliz...
2.Sheu SJ, Ger LP, Ho WL. Late increased risk of retinal detachment after cataract extraction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 Jan;149(1):113-9.
3.Tajunisah I, Reddy SC. Dropped nucleus following phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Med J Malaysia. 2007 Dec;62 (5):364-7.
4.Shukhaev SV, Matveeva AV, Kirillova OV, Zagorulko AM. [Comparative evaluation of target refraction between three monofocal flexible intraocular lenses]. Fyodorov Journal of Ophthalmic Surgery. 2018;(1):53-58. Russian.
5.Malyugin BE, Morozova TA. [A review of historical aspects and modern trends in multifocal intraocular correction]. Oftalmokhirurgiia. 2004;(3):23-9. Russian.
6.Dikovskaia MA, Iskakov IA. [Positioning MIOL-Akkord refractive and diffractive IOL in the capsular bag during implantation of the intracapsular ring]. In: [Advanced technologies in ophthalmology: A collection of science papers]. Krasnodar; 2008. p.36-38. Russian.
7.Iskakov IA, Druzhinin IB, Morozova IM, et al. [Degree of pupil independence in various designs of refractive and diffractive IOLs]. In: [Ophthalmology of the Black Sea countries: A collection of science papers]. Krasnodar; 2006. p.114-7. Russian.
8.Alvarez-Rementeria L, Montes-Mico R. Pseudoaccomodating intraocular lens implantation in patient with irregular nonreactive puppies. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Oct;33(10):1823-5.
9.Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F. Correlation between Pupillary Size and Intraocular Lens Decentration and Visual Acuity of a Zonal-progressive Multifocal IOL and a Monofocal IOL. Ophthalmology. 2001 Nov;108(11):2011-7.
10.Birich TA, Fedorov IuG, Chekina AIu, Motornyi VV. [Instructions on the fast approach for determining the contrast sensitivity of the eye with the use of the contrast optotype chart (patent No. 9853)]. Minsk; 2008. Russian.
11.Morozova TA, Kerimov TZ. [Modern Approaches to Dysphotopsia Analysis, Assessmentof Patient Satisfaction and Spectacle Independence after Multifocal Intraocular Correction: Review].
12.VESTNIK RAMN. 2017; 72(5):355–64. Russian.
13.Tur EV, Pozdeieva VA, Sorokina IA, Boiko MV. [Refractive outcomes of implantation of a multifocal IOL in patients with high myopia and amblyopia]. Sovremennyie tekhnologii v oftalmologii. 2018;5:243-5. Russian.
Funding: This study did not receive any funding support.
Conflict of interest: No conflict of interest to declare