Trifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes previously treated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.
dc.contributor.author | Bilbao-Calabuig, Rafael | |
dc.contributor.author | Ortega-Usobiaga, Julio | |
dc.contributor.author | Mayordomo-Cerdá, Fernando | |
dc.contributor.author | Beltrán-Sanz, Jaime | |
dc.contributor.author | Fernández-García, Javier | |
dc.contributor.author | Cobo Soriano, Rosario | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-04-08T12:13:50Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-04-08T12:13:50Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: 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. | spa |
dc.description.extent | 802 KB | spa |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.4103/IJO.IJO_1844_23 | spa |
dc.identifier.issn | 0301-4738 | spa |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10641/4284 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | spa |
dc.publisher | Indian Journal of Ophthalmology | spa |
dc.relation.publisherversion | https://journals.lww.com/ijo/fulltext/2024/72002/trifocal_versus_monofocal_intraocular_lens.16.aspx | spa |
dc.rights | Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España | * |
dc.rights.accessRights | open access | spa |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/ | * |
dc.subject | Laser visual correction | spa |
dc.subject | LASIK | spa |
dc.subject | Multifocal intraocular lens | spa |
dc.subject | Myopia | spa |
dc.subject | Trifocal intraocular lens | spa |
dc.title | Trifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes previously treated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia. | spa |
dc.type | journal article | spa |
dc.type.hasVersion | VoR | spa |
dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
relation.isAuthorOfPublication | 7c3ad452-288f-4ab5-b9ed-867605d19191 | |
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery | 7c3ad452-288f-4ab5-b9ed-867605d19191 |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- trifocal_versus_monofocal_intraocular_lens.16.pdf
- Size:
- 801.4 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description: