Incidence of dysphotopsia following uneventful cataract surgery [phacoemulsification] in patients implanted with different types of monofocal intraocular lenses

Khalid Saeed  Abdulmajeed; Mohammed Nidham  Abdalla; Tara Mahmood  Hassan

doi:10.56056/amj.2024.304

Authors

Khalid Saeed Abdulmajeed MBChB CABMS(Oph.), Consultant ophthalmologist, Department of surgery, College of Medicine, University of Sulaimania
Mohammed Nidham Abdalla MBChB, KHCMS candidate, Dr. Aso eye hospital, Sulaimania city
Tara Mahmood Hassan MBChB SMSB(Oph.) Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Sulaimania

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56056/amj.2024.304

Keywords:

Cataract, Dysphotopsia, Intraocular lens, Phacoemulsification, Posterior Capsular Opacification

Abstract

Background and objectives: Pseudophakic dysphotopsia is one of the major causes of patient dissatisfaction after cataract surgery. Our aim was to assess the incidence of dysphotopsia after phacoemulsification with implantation of three types of monofocal intraocular lenses.

Methods: This prospective clinical study which contained 200 eyes from 195 patients was done at Dr. Aso eye hospital in Sulaimania city between June 2022 to June 2023. Those 200 eyes (participants) were divided into three different groups according to their IOL types were followed-up for 6 months to estimate the incidence and symptoms of dysphotopsia.

Results: overall incidence of dysphotopsia was (22%). 34 cases (17%) reported their symptoms in the first three weeks of follow-up. This figure decreased to (4% and 1%) after 3 and 6 months, respectively. The most common phenomenon noted was temporal shadow/darkness; declared by 34.09% of patients who reported dysphotopsia. Optical phenomena occurred more frequently in patients with Acryfold lens group. The great majority of the patients (94.5%) were satisfied with their post-operative visual function. Both, overall incidence of dysphotopsia and its higher rate in the 1^st group (Acryfold) were statistically significant values (p= 0.0399 and 0.0418), respectively. Conversely, there was no statistically significant difference between Rayner and Acrysof lenses in terms of dysphotopsia occurrence (p-value= 0.053).

Conclusion: Although monofocal intraocular lenses showed significant rates of dysphotopsia, they were still associated with high patient satisfaction level because majority of the symptoms were mild and went away with time.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Tester R, Pace NL, Samore M, Olson RJ. Dysphotopsia in phakic and pseudophakic patients: incidence in relation to intraocular lens type. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26;810-16.

Arnold PN: photic phenomena after phacoemulsification and posterior chamber lens implantation of various optic sizes. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994; 20:446-50.

Davison JA: Positive and negative dysphotopsia in patients with acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26:1346-55.

Osher RH. Negative dysphotopsia: long-term study and possible explanation for transient symptoms. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34:1699-707.

Ellis MF. Sharp-edged intraocular lens design as a cause of permanent glare. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:1061-64.

Kohnen T, Fabian E, Gerl R, Hunold W, Hutz W, Strobel J, et al. Optic edge design as a long-term factor for posterior capsular opacification rates. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:1308-14. 1314.e1-3.

Holladay JT, Zhao H, Reisin C. Negative dysphotopsia: the enigmatic penumbra. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38(7): 1251-65.

Tang Y, Song H, Chen J, Tang X. Comparison of pseudophakic retinal straylight in spherical/aspherical and hydrophobic/hydrophilic intraocular lens. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015; 8(6): 1146-50.

Li Y, Wang J, Chen Z, Tang X. Effect of hydrophobic acrylic versus hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens on posterior capsular opacification: PLoS One. 2013;8(11): e77864. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077864/

Folden DV. Neodymium: YAG laser anterior capsulotomy: Surgical option in the management of negative dysphotopsia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39: 1110-15.

Vyas A. Incidence of dysphotopsia in patients implanted with C-flex intraocular lens with 360® enhanced square edge: a questionnaire-based study. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015; 6(1):1-7. Doi.org/10.4172/2155-9570.1000391/

Kinnard K, Jarstad A, Olson RJ. Correlation of visual quality with satisfaction and function in a normal cohort of pseudophakic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg.2013; 39: 590-97.

Mamalis N. Complication of foldable intraocular lenses requiring explanation or secondary intervention-1998 survey. J Cataract Refract Surg.2000; 26: 810-16.

Bournas P, Drazinos S, Kanellas D, Arvanitis M, Vaikoussis E. Dysphotopsia after cataract surgery: comparison of four different intraocular lenses. Ophthalmologica 2007;378-83.

Holladay JT, Simpson MJ. Negative dysphotopsia: Causes and rationale for prevention and treatment. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017; 43:263-75.

Davison JA: Clinical performance of Alcon SA30AL and SA60AT single-piece acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:1112-23.

Davison J: Consultation section. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31:657-8.

Masket S: Truncated edge design, dysphotopsia, and inhibition of posterior capsule opacification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26:145-7.

Masket S, Fram NR. Pseudophakic dysphotopsia: review of incidence, cause, and treatment of positive and negative dysphotopsia. Ophthalmology 2021, 128: e195-e205.

Henderson BA, Geneva ??. Negative dysphotopsia: a perfect storm. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41:2291-2312.

Erie JC, Simpson MJ, Bandhauer MH. Influence of the intraocular lens optic-haptic junction on illumination of the peripheral retina and negative dysphotopsia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2019; 45:1335-39.

Henderson BA, YI DH, Constantine JB, Geneva ??. New preventive approach for negative dysphotopsia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016; 42:1449-55.

Manasseh GS, Pritchard EW, Rothwell AE, Luck J. Pseudophakic negative dysphotopsia and intraocular lens orientation: a prospective, double-masked, randomized controlled trial. Acta Opthalmol 2020; 98: e743-e46.