4.3 Article

Surgical management of positive dysphotopsia: US perspective

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 46, 期 11, 页码 1474-1479

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000307

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) exchange for intolerable positive dysphotopsia (PD). Setting: Private practice, Advanced Vision Care, Los Angeles, California, USA. Design: Retrospective review, case series. Methods: Fifty-six eyes of 46 pseudophakic patients requiring surgical management of PD between 2013 and 2019 were reviewed. Thirty-seven eyes had PD alone and 19 had combined negative dysphotopsia and PD. Inclusion criteria: corrected distance visual acuity of 20/30 or better without significant corneal, retinal, or optic nerve pathology. Exclusion criteria: corneal, macular, or optic nerve disease and multifocal dysphotopsia alone (defined patterns of concentric multiple halos or spider web patterns when looking at a point source of light). Primary outcome measure was improvement or resolution of self-reported PD symptoms by 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included analysis of intraocular lenses (IOLs) that induced PD for IOL material, index of refraction, and edge design. Results: IOL materials successful in the alleviation of PD symptoms were as follows: 20 (87.8%) of 33 silicone, 15 (76.2%) of 21 copolymer, and 2 poly(methyl methacrylate) (100%). However, when considering IOL exchange for an acrylic to silicone optic or acrylic to collamer optic, the percentages of improvement are indistinguishable at 87% and 88%, respectively. Conclusions: PD symptoms might be improved by changing the IOL material and, therefore, index of refraction. Although edge design plays an important role in etiology, changing the IOL material to a lower index of refraction may prove to be an effective surgical strategy to improve intolerable PD. Copyright (c) 2020 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据