Clinical Evaluation of Monovision After Cataract Surgery

Ho Young Lee; Jun Her

doi:10.3341/jkos.2008.49.9.1437

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.49(9) > 1008075

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee and Her: Clinical Evaluation of Monovision After Cataract Surgery

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2008;49(9):1437-1442.

Published online: 7 September 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2008.49.9.1437

Clinical Evaluation of Monovision After Cataract Surgery

Ho Young Lee, M.D., Jun Her, M.D., Ph.D.

Department of Ophthalmology, Pusan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Pusan, Korea

Address reprint requests to Jun Her, M.D., Ph.D.Department of Ophthalmology Pusan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine #633-165 Kekum-dong, Pusanjin-gu, Pusan 614-735, Korea Tel: 82-51-890-6357, Fax: 82-51-890-6329, E-mail: hereye@inje.ac.kr

Received 11 June 2008 Accepted 13 February 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical results of monovision treatment applied to cataract patients who planned to undergo phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens (PC IOL) implantation.

Methods

Phacoemulsificaiton and implantation of a monofocal PC IOL were performed in 40 patients between January 2005 and January 2006. Surgeries were performed on the dominant eye with the postoperative goals of emmetropia and on the nondominant eye with the postoperative goals of mild myopia. Patients' satisfaction, refractive change, and visual acuity were evaluated for at least 3 months after the surgery.

Results

The mean postoperative uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA) of binocular eyes was 0.56±0.52, which was a statistically significant improvement compared with the mean preoperative UCNVA ( P<0.001). The mean postoperative uncorrected far visual acuity(UCFVA) of binocular eyes was 0.70±0.34, which was a statistically significant improvement compared with the mean preoperative UCFVA ( P<0.001). In all, 77.5% (31 of 40) of patients were satisfied with the results.

Conclusions

Monovision induced by phacoemulsification and implantation of a monofocal PC IOL is suggested to be a good option in patients with presbyopia and cataract.

Keywords: Cataract surgery, Monovision, Phacoemulsification, Presbyopia

References

1. Stahl JE. Conductive keratoplasty for presbyopia: 3-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 23:905–10.

2. Beddow DR, Martin SJ, Pfeiffer CH. Presbyopic patients and single vision contact lenses. South J Optom. 1966; 8:9–11.

3. Nano HD, Muzzin S. Noncontact holmium: Yag laser themal keartoplasty for hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:751–7.

4. Wright KW, Guemes A, Kapadia MS, Wilson SE. Binocular function and patient satisfaction after monovision induced by myopic photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999; 25:177–82.

5. Goldberg DB. Laser in situ keratomileusis monovision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:1449–55.

6. Harris MG, Classe JG. Clinicolegal considerations of monovision. J Am Optom Assoc. 1988; 59:491–5.

7. Ahn K, Huh DW, Kim WJ, Chung ES. Clinical evaluation of monovision induced by laser thermal keratoplasty (LTK). J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:1036–43.

8. Garner LF, Yap MK. Changes in ocular dimensions and refraction with accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1997; 17:12–7.

9. Nakazawa M, Ohtsuki K. Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes after implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983; 96:435–8.

10. Trindade F, Oliveira A, Frasson M. Benefit of against-the-rule astigmatism to uncorrected near acuity. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997; 23:82–5.

11. Giuseppe R, Fabio B, Giorgio R. Contrast sensitivity in multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993; 19:22–5.

12. Anne WN, Lief C, Thomas O. Contrast sensitivity and glare in patients with a diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993; 19:254–7.

13. Pieh S, Weghaupt H, Storpik C. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability with diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:659–62.

14. Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Schwenn O. . Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:1878–86.

15. Greenbaum S. Monovision pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:1439–43.

16. Josephson JE, Erickson P, Back A. . Monovision. J Am Optom Assoc. 1990; 61:820–6.

17. Harris MG, Classe JG. Clinicolegal considerations of monovision. J Am Optom Assoc. 1988; 59:491–5.

Figure 1.

Perioperative changes in binocular uncorrected near visual acuity.

Figure 2.

Perioperative changes in binocular uncorrected far visual acuity.

Figure 3.

Patients’ satisfaction.

Figure 4.

Spectacle dependence.

Table 1.

Patients’ demographics

Demographic	Value
Number of patients (eyes)	40 (80)
Gender (n, %)∗ Female	21 (52.5%)
Male	19 (47.5%)
Age (year) Mean±SD	67.1±5.03
Range	60 to 80
Preop SE (D) ^† Mean±SD	+0.55±0.68
Range	-0.50 to +2.00

^∗ number of patients

^† spherical equivalent

Table 2.

Perioperative comparison of spherical equivalent (SE), uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), and uncorrected far visual acuity (UCFVA)

		Pre-op	Post-op
		Pre-op	1 Mon	3 Mon
Dominant eye	SE (D)	+0.61±0.72	-0.12±0.47		-0.23±0.30
	UCNVA	0.21±0.12	0.52±0.31		0.45±0.12
	UCFVA	0.36±0.12	0.69±0.01		0.71±0.17
Non-dominant eye	SE (D)	+0.50±0.66	-1.35±0.45		-1.53±0.26
	UCNVA	0.19±0.08	0.55±0.72		0.58±0.14
	UCFVA	0.35±0.12	0.59±0.22		0.55±0.10
Binocular	UCNVA	0.25±0.45	0.60±0.22		0.56±0.52
	UCFVA	0.40±0.21	0.68±0.21		0.70±0.34

TOOLS

Similar articles