Eyeworld

JUNE/JULY 2020 | EYEWORLD | 13 in binocular corrected distance visual acuity at any point on the defocus curve. The results of the quality of vision ques- tionnaire found that the mildly myopic group had significantly superior visual satisfaction at near while the mildly emmetropic group had statistically significant visual satisfaction at distance. Regarding overall visual satisfaction there was not a statistically significant differ- ence between the groups, although there was a non-significant trend in favor of the mildly myopic group. Non-significant trends toward the mildly myopic target group were also found in responses regarding spectacle independence and hours of spectacle use. Comments As the first study to investigate mildly myopic (–0.40 to –0.75 D) vs. emmetropic (0 to –0.30 D) targets in bilateral monofocal IOL implan- tation, compelling evidence is provided for a mild myopic aim to optimize uncorrected myopic group was 69.1±8.7. The mean post- operative spherical equivalent of the emme- tropic group was –0.15±0.29 D, and the mean postoperative spherical equivalent of the mildly myopic group was –0.63±0.31 D. Uncor- rected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were found to be significantly superior in the mildly myopic group when compared to the emme- tropic group. However, there was only minimal reduction in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) in the mildly myopic group. In their analysis of binocular UDVA, the mildly myopic group demonstrated significantly better vision than the emmetropic group at –4.0 through –0.5 D, and the emmetropic group had significantly better vision than the mildly myo- pic group at +0.5 through +1.5 D. The emme- tropic target group exhibited a non-significantly superior binocular UDVA at 0 diopters on the defocus curve, with the mildly myopic target group remaining very close to 20/20 (logMAR 0.03±0.06). There was no significant difference performance and satisfaction with a mild myopic target using a spherical continued on page 14 References 1. Khandelwal SS, et al. Effective- ness of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery and lens replacement: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;257:863–875. 2. Zvornicanin J, Zvornicanin E. Premium intraocular lenses: The past, present and future. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018;30:287–296. 3. Labiris G, et al. A systematic review of pseudophakic mono- vision for presbyopia correction. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017;10:992– 1000. 4. Wang B, Ciuffreda KJ. Depth- of-focus of the human eye: theory and clinical implications. Surv Ophthalmol. 2006;51:75–85. From the Emory Eye Center: top, from left: Kenneth Price, MD, Jeremy Jones, MD; middle, from left: Matthew Floyd, MD, Gina Shetty, MD; bottom: Rebecca Neustein, MD Source: Emory Eye Center

• Blank Page
• Blank Page (1)
• Blank Page (2)