Browsing by Author "Bilbao-Calabuig, Rafael"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Laser corneal enhancement after trifocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes that previously had photoablative corneal refractive surgery.(Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 2022) Mayordomo-Cerdá, Fernando; Ortega-Usobiaga, Julio; Bilbao-Calabuig, Rafael; González-López, Félix; Llovet-Osuna, Fernando; Fernández-García, Javier L.; Cobo Soriano, RosarioItem Trifocal IOL Implantation in Eyes With Previous Laser Corneal Refractive Surgery: The Impact of Corneal Spherical Aberration on Postoperative Visual Outcomes.(Journal of Refractive Surgery, 2022) Cobo Soriano, Rosario; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Beatriz; Bilbao-Calabuig, Rafael; Tejerina, Victor; Corrochano, Alba; Druchkiv, Vasyl; Beltran, JaimePURPOSE:To analyze corneal aberrations and factors affecting visual outcomes after implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes previously treated with laser corneal refractive surgery. METHODS:This retrospective case series included 222 consecutive eyes implanted with the trifocal FineVision Micro-F IOL (PhysIOL) after laser corneal refractive surgery. The series was divided into two groups according to safety outcomes after lensectomy: eyes with loss of one or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) [n = 59, 26.5%]) (failed eyes group) and eyes with no loss or gain in CDVA lines (n = 163, 73.4%]) (successful eyes group). Distribution of tomographic corneal aberrations (spherical aberration [Z40], comatic and root mean square of higher order aberrations [RMS-HOA]), laser corneal refractive surgery error, kappa angle, and CDVA after laser corneal refractive surgery were compared among both groups. RESULTS:Mean CDVA after lensectomy was 0.15 ± 0.07 logMAR (range: 0.05 to 0.30 logMAR) versus 0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR (range: 0.00 to 0.15 logMAR) in the failed and successful eyes groups, respectively (P < .001). Comparison of both groups showed that failed eyes had a statistically significantly higher grade of hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery than successful eyes measured as mean sphere (+0.71 ± 3.10 diopters [D] [range: −7.75 to +6.00 D] vs −0.46 ± 3.70 D [range: −10.75 to +6.00 D], P < .01), spherical equivalent (+0.27 ± 3.10 D [range: −8.00 to +5.50 D] vs −0.97 ± 3.60 D [range: −12.50 to +4.90 D], P < .05), and percentage of hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery (64% vs 43.5%, P < .05). Corneal aberration analysis showed that mean Z40 values were significantly more negative in the failed eyes group than in the successful eyes group (+0.07 ± 0.40 mm [range: −0.82 to +0.65 mm] vs +0.18 ± 0.37 mm [range: −0.79 to +0.87 mm], P < .05). Laser corneal refractive surgery cylinder was distributed homogeneously between both groups, as well as coma and RMS-HOA, kappa angle, and CDVA after laser corneal refractive surgery that were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS:Surgeons should consider tomographic corneal spherical aberration after implantation of a trifocal IOL in eyes after keratorefractive surgery, particularly in eyes previously treated with hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery, to prevent loss of lines of visual acuity after lensectomy.Item Trifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes previously treated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.(Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 2024) Bilbao-Calabuig, Rafael; Ortega-Usobiaga, Julio; Mayordomo-Cerdá, Fernando; Beltrán-Sanz, Jaime; Fernández-García, Javier; Cobo Soriano, RosarioPurpose: To assess visual and refractive outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes that had previously undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia and to compare them with those recorded after implantation of a monofocal IOL. Design: Retrospective comparative cases series. Methods: This study evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), safety, and efficacy after the implantation of two comparable trifocal IOL models and one monofocal IOL model in patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK. Patients were classified according to the implanted IOL (monofocal or trifocal). Results: A total of 211 eyes from 170 patients received a monofocal IOL, and 211 eyes from 161 patients received a trifocal IOL. At the end of the study, after lensectomy, there was a higher myopic residual spherical equivalent in the monofocal group because some eyes had been targeted for slight myopia to achieve monovision; therefore, UDVA was better in the trifocal group. CDVA was comparable in both groups. As expected, both monocular and binocular UNVA were significantly better in the trifocal group. Although the percentage of eyes that lost ≥1 line of CDVA did not differ between the groups, the safety index was slightly better in the monofocal group. Conclusion: Although implantation of monofocal and trifocal IOLs after myopic LASIK yielded excellent distance visual outcomes, UNVA was significantly better for the trifocal IOL, with a minimally worse safety profile. Trifocal IOLs can be considered after previous LASIK for myopia, with an appropriate patient selection.