4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Quality of life after first- and second-eye cataract surgery -: Five-year data collected by the Swedish National Cataract Register

Journal

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
Volume 27, Issue 10, Pages 1553-1559

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(01)00984-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To study the benefits of surgery and satisfaction with vision after first- and second-eye cataract surgery in comparable groups of patients. Setting. Clinics participating in the Swedish National Cataract Outcome Study from 1995 to 1999. Methods: A prospective observational study evaluated patients' seif-assessed visual function and satisfaction with vision before and 6 months after cataract extraction. Patients who had another cataract surgery in the fellow eye during the 6-month study were excluded. Data of 8595 patients having cataract extraction at participating clinics during the month of March for 1995 to 1999 were collected. Preoperative and intraoperative data were reported at the time of surgery. Final postoperative visual acuity was recorded. The Catquest questionnaire was completed before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Results: First-eye surgery was performed in 5570 patients and second-eye surgery, in 3025. Patient-assessed benefits of surgery and satisfaction with vision as defined by the Catquest was higher after second-eye surgery (P < .001). The outcomes were studied in detail in patients with equal visual acuity in the fellow eye before and after surgery and without ocular comorbidity. The better outcome after second-eye surgery was most pronounced in patients with good or intermediate visual acuity in the fellow eye. Conclusion: The self-assessed visual outcomes and satisfaction with vision were better after second-eye surgery than after first-eye surgery in comparable groups of patients. (C) 2001 ASCRS and ESCRS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available