Epiretinal membrane surgery in patients with multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses

Jong Young Lee, Kwangsic Joo, Sang Jun Park, Se Joon Woo, Kyu Hyung Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the visual/anatomical outcomes and feasibility of epiretinal membrane surgery between patients with multifocal or monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 46 patients who underwent epiretinal membrane surgery under multifocal or monofocal IOL pseudophakia. The operation time, mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity, and central macular thickness, and complications were compared between the groups. Results: Macular surgery was performed in 22 and 24 eyes with multifocal and monofocal IOLs, respectively. The total operation time and the total membrane peeling time were similar in both groups (P = 0.125, P = 0.462, respectively). The mean time to create a membrane edge or flap with retinal microforceps was longer for multifocal than for monofocal IOLs (P = 0.013). The mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness were similar in both groups (P = 0.682, P = 0.741, respectively). Complications were similar between groups. Conclusion: With multifocal IOLs, vision outside the central surgical field was blurred, requiring more time to create the membrane flap. Retinal surgeons should anticipate the difficulty in precise focusing when creating a membrane flap in macular surgery in patients with multifocal IOLs and should pay more attention to the macular surgery.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2491-2498
Number of pages8
JournalRetina
Volume41
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Dec 2021

Keywords

  • Epiretinal membrane
  • Macular surgery
  • Multifocal intraocular lens
  • Surgical field-of-view

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Epiretinal membrane surgery in patients with multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this