Aa
Dissatisfied Multifocal IOL problems
Study finds most dissatisfied multifocal IOL patients can be treated effectively
Researchers retrospectively reviewed charts of 49 patients (76 eyes) dissatisfied with their vision after multifocal IOL implantation (mostly+4.00 D Restor IOL) and found that blurred vision, with or without photic phenomenon, occurred in 94.7 percent and photic phenomena, with or without blurred vision, occurred in 38.2 percent. Both symptoms were present in 32.9 percent. The most common reasons: residual ametropia and astigmatism, posterior capsule opacification, and a large pupil. While most patients were amenable to therapy (refractive surgery, spectacles, and laser capsulotomy), IOL exchange was performed in 4 percent. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, May 2011
Researchers retrospectively reviewed charts of 49 patients (76 eyes) dissatisfied with their vision after multifocal IOL implantation (mostly+4.00 D Restor IOL) and found that blurred vision, with or without photic phenomenon, occurred in 94.7 percent and photic phenomena, with or without blurred vision, occurred in 38.2 percent. Both symptoms were present in 32.9 percent. The most common reasons: residual ametropia and astigmatism, posterior capsule opacification, and a large pupil. While most patients were amenable to therapy (refractive surgery, spectacles, and laser capsulotomy), IOL exchange was performed in 4 percent. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, May 2011
There seem to be quite a few posts on online forums from unhappy multifocal patients who have already been seen by more than one cataract surgeon, without improvement in their vision. Many express the belief that their quality of life has been significantly impaired by their multifocal vision. Some state that they too fearful to attempt an IOL exchange. The above study suggests that these patients represent only a small minority of multifocal recipients.
I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of the multifocal patients were found to be happy with their vision.
I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of the multifocal patients were found to be happy with their vision.
Count me among the satisfied ones. Although I have ReSTOR IQ +3. which I understand is an improvement over +4, mostly due to intermediate vision.
The majority of posters in medical forums write in precisely because they are having some kind of problem.
By contrast, happy patients for whom things have gone well seldom post at medhelp or at any other medical forum. Those who are reasonably content with their outcomes do not haunt these sites. They don't need help, so we don't hear much from them.
Therefore, we see an inherent bias towards displeasure, when in fact the balance could be much different from what it appears.
By now, there must be some kind of good sized study out there which contains both positive and negative reactions to multifocal implants gleaned from a reasonably large patient database, but I have not found one.
By contrast, happy patients for whom things have gone well seldom post at medhelp or at any other medical forum. Those who are reasonably content with their outcomes do not haunt these sites. They don't need help, so we don't hear much from them.
Therefore, we see an inherent bias towards displeasure, when in fact the balance could be much different from what it appears.
By now, there must be some kind of good sized study out there which contains both positive and negative reactions to multifocal implants gleaned from a reasonably large patient database, but I have not found one.
Yes, there probably is a bias in satisfaction level among people who post on forums. Yet a few of the unhappy multifocal patients have reported that none of their friends/associates who also have multifocal IOLs are very happy either. I've never seen a study indicating the percentage of multifocal patients who are happy with their outcome, although this would be easy to determine by post-surgery interviews/questionnaires. Are the happy patients a select group of people?
The criteria for a good outcome with ReStor seem to include: healthy eyes, no astigmatism, small pupils, an experienced surgeon, and possibly the absence of higher order aberrations. The above study suggests that some problems (e.g., residual astigmatism and ametropia) can be helped by refractive surgery, glasses, and/or YAG. But do these corrective treatments really change most of the dissatisfied patients into happy ones?
The criteria for a good outcome with ReStor seem to include: healthy eyes, no astigmatism, small pupils, an experienced surgeon, and possibly the absence of higher order aberrations. The above study suggests that some problems (e.g., residual astigmatism and ametropia) can be helped by refractive surgery, glasses, and/or YAG. But do these corrective treatments really change most of the dissatisfied patients into happy ones?
As you perhaps know, my own surgical outcome with the reStor D1 was so successful that it essentially gave me youthful, perfect vision.
However, as I have mentioned, my surgeon is very careful to match his lenses to his patients, and he says he gives the reStor to only about 30% of his cataract patients, based on criteria that you list, including a 'short' eyeball (hyperopia), no astigmatism, retinal health, and certain other intraocular measurements.
I get the impression from reading posts by unhappy patients that this degree of selectiveness may be rare among eye surgeons, but who knows? Happy patients are not posting here. I also have the impression that multifocal IOLs may still be rather rare in the general population. For example, I am an eye patient (obviously) and have several friends with fixed focus IOLs (two of them with unsuccessful outcomes, interestingly). I have never met another person with a multifocal IOL, even though I am in an age group where you would expect to see some lens replacements.
My doctor is naturally conservative and neither pushes surgery nor promises miracles, but he has been in business here for decades and done thousands of eyes, and according to him, among his reStor patients, he has had only three truly unhappy patients. He said that two of them finally got to 'happy,' and he's still working with the third.
However, as I have mentioned, my surgeon is very careful to match his lenses to his patients, and he says he gives the reStor to only about 30% of his cataract patients, based on criteria that you list, including a 'short' eyeball (hyperopia), no astigmatism, retinal health, and certain other intraocular measurements.
I get the impression from reading posts by unhappy patients that this degree of selectiveness may be rare among eye surgeons, but who knows? Happy patients are not posting here. I also have the impression that multifocal IOLs may still be rather rare in the general population. For example, I am an eye patient (obviously) and have several friends with fixed focus IOLs (two of them with unsuccessful outcomes, interestingly). I have never met another person with a multifocal IOL, even though I am in an age group where you would expect to see some lens replacements.
My doctor is naturally conservative and neither pushes surgery nor promises miracles, but he has been in business here for decades and done thousands of eyes, and according to him, among his reStor patients, he has had only three truly unhappy patients. He said that two of them finally got to 'happy,' and he's still working with the third.
I invite you to read my journal (actually journals) about my own experience with the implantation of ReSTOR lenses. As you will see, my surgeon has done a great deal to ensure that my vision is of the best quality possible. I do agree, in general, with Jodie that the best patients for multifocal IOL's are probably those with no or miminal astigmatism and smaller pupils -- at least those eyes whose angle kappa is narrow enough so that the innermost ring of the lens won't cause problems.
Jodie also has a point about friends of patients. But sometimes friends or acquaintances can influence people in a negative way. It's possible that reasonably satisified people can be influenced to feel that they should NOT have been satisfied because their vision isn't perfect. I think, too, that although the literature suggests that patients should be informed at the outset that their vision is not going to be perfect, and that there are some tradeoffs between multifocal lenses and monofocals, some eye surgeons tend to minimize this. The bottom line, then, is that (1) the patient has be be carefully screened, (2) the patient absolutely MUST be informed, and must accept the fact, that his/her vision is probably nto going to be perfect, (3) the surgeon should be experienced and comfortable with the type of lens being implanted, (4) the surgeon and patient must be accepting of the fact that additional work/procedures may have to be done after implantation.
Jodie also has a point about friends of patients. But sometimes friends or acquaintances can influence people in a negative way. It's possible that reasonably satisified people can be influenced to feel that they should NOT have been satisfied because their vision isn't perfect. I think, too, that although the literature suggests that patients should be informed at the outset that their vision is not going to be perfect, and that there are some tradeoffs between multifocal lenses and monofocals, some eye surgeons tend to minimize this. The bottom line, then, is that (1) the patient has be be carefully screened, (2) the patient absolutely MUST be informed, and must accept the fact, that his/her vision is probably nto going to be perfect, (3) the surgeon should be experienced and comfortable with the type of lens being implanted, (4) the surgeon and patient must be accepting of the fact that additional work/procedures may have to be done after implantation.
It's my belief that people who are unhappy with their vision usually have good reasons to feel that way. They are not neurotic or perfectionistic. Many middle-aged (and older) adults have more than one of the following characteristics: astigmatism, large pupils, retinal conditions, corneal conditions, dry eyes, higher order aberrations. (I have at least 4 of the above.) We're probably poor candidates for multifocal IOLs, and I seriously doubt that a LASIK touch-up would turn us into happy multifocal patients. My impression is that an accommodating IOL like the Crystalens might be a better choice for many people who aren't ideal candidates for multifocals but don't want monovision.
You are probably right, Jodie. There is certainly a limited population that are good candidates for multifocals. I have no doubt that there are many patients who are disappointed with these lenses, and much of that disappointment is warranted. My only point here is that some folks may have been expecting better vision -- not perfect necessarily, but better than it actually turned out -- so it is incumbant on the eye surgeon to do a good job of ensuring that expectations are realistic as wll as a good job of screening prospective patients.
From my experience with this lens, I would not choose Crystalens if there are retina problems. I was screened out for Restore and was given the choice whether to have Crystalens or old fashioned lens, presented to me as a toss up-- risks the same and did I want to pay for a possible outcome of not wearing glasses I decided - yes.
The cataract surgeon made no mention of the fact that my possible retina problems were a consideration. Turned out, the retina specialist had reported that an accurate condition of the retina could not be determined until the centrally located cataract was removed and he could see more clearly. Hindsight-- I had possible retinal problems and moderate or astigmatism but neither were mentioned as considerations when I was presented with making my own choice. Perhaps they should have been. The Crystalens was expensive and did nothing to help the (still present) retina problems including distortion. Also,more than one refractive surgeon I have complained to about the poor accommodation and range of vision I have with the Crystalens, has said the lens will with not work as it is supposed to do if there is a problem with the retina. I'm not sure exactly what they mean. I have had surgery to improve retina - ERM peel- it did not solve all my problems, I still have distortion, but I really have not seen any improvement in the operation of the Crystalens
The cataract surgeon made no mention of the fact that my possible retina problems were a consideration. Turned out, the retina specialist had reported that an accurate condition of the retina could not be determined until the centrally located cataract was removed and he could see more clearly. Hindsight-- I had possible retinal problems and moderate or astigmatism but neither were mentioned as considerations when I was presented with making my own choice. Perhaps they should have been. The Crystalens was expensive and did nothing to help the (still present) retina problems including distortion. Also,more than one refractive surgeon I have complained to about the poor accommodation and range of vision I have with the Crystalens, has said the lens will with not work as it is supposed to do if there is a problem with the retina. I'm not sure exactly what they mean. I have had surgery to improve retina - ERM peel- it did not solve all my problems, I still have distortion, but I really have not seen any improvement in the operation of the Crystalens
Your experience should be valuable information for other people with retinal problems who are contemplating getting the Crystalens. Dr. Oyakawa, who has had multiple surgeries for retinal detachment and ERM peeling, has reported on this forum that he has been pleased with his Crystalens despite the distortion he has due to retinal damage. I'd be interested in reading his comments to your post.
I've read that some visual problems (such as mild retinal damage, higher order aberrations, and astigmatism) make vision with a multifocal IOL much worse than it would be with a monofocal IOL. It seems that some cataract surgeons are unaware of the contraindications for a "premium" IOL.
I've read that some visual problems (such as mild retinal damage, higher order aberrations, and astigmatism) make vision with a multifocal IOL much worse than it would be with a monofocal IOL. It seems that some cataract surgeons are unaware of the contraindications for a "premium" IOL.
It seems there is a wide difference of opinion among ophthalmologists as to what sort of premium lens is preferable. My own eye surgeon does not like Crystalens nearly as much as the multifocals -- it's his experience that sometimes these lenses accommodate pretty well and sometimes they don't.
One thing that seems to be pretty certain is that multifocal lenses such as ReSTOR are definitely contraindicated where someone has a retinal problem or whose eyes are otherwise not healthy.
I too am interested to hear Dr. Oyakawa's comments regarding Crystalens in light of caren123's comments.
One thing that seems to be pretty certain is that multifocal lenses such as ReSTOR are definitely contraindicated where someone has a retinal problem or whose eyes are otherwise not healthy.
I too am interested to hear Dr. Oyakawa's comments regarding Crystalens in light of caren123's comments.
One other contraindication (although it's not really relevant to this thread): Do not get a toric IOL if you have irregular astigmatism. Per an article I've received from an unhappy toric patient, a conventional spherical IOL works best with irregular astigmatism. Send me a private message with an email address to receive this article.
Reading between the lines of many postings, it seems that multifocal introocular lens implants are recommended in some cases where some measurement, technique or calculation ought to have been performed. So where can we find what constitutes the standard of care" for an ophthalmologist who deals with patients who require cataract surgery and who may be recommended for implants? Is there a recognized publication that spells out what measurements,what medical examinations, and what calculations should be made?
My apoligies, I've introducted Crystalens into this discussion and it is not a "mnultifocal" lens - but it is a premium lens. As soon as I get my facts straight as to my case, I will ask Dr. Oyakawa what he thinks about the coments my doctors have made..
I am interested to know regarding cwatt1's comment that "both surgeon and pt must be accepting of the fact that additional work/procedures may have to be done after implementation", is this additional work needed more often when premium IOL's are used, or is it common also when using standard lenses.
I am interested to know regarding cwatt1's comment that "both surgeon and pt must be accepting of the fact that additional work/procedures may have to be done after implementation", is this additional work needed more often when premium IOL's are used, or is it common also when using standard lenses.
My comment regarding additional work/procedures could be extended to any type of lens implantation, but I intended it to be in the context of premium lenses that are designed to minimize a patient's dependence on corrective lenses.
The reason is that typically a patient's expectations are that they will spend most of their time free of corrective lenses. In order to accomplish this, additional corrective procedures such as LASIK, PRK, or limbal relaxing incisions may be needed. This is particularly true for a patient that has astigmatism, as premium lenses such as Crystalens (or Tecnis or ReSTOR, for that matter) tht are designed to provide effective vision at all distances will not correct astigmatism.
The reason is that typically a patient's expectations are that they will spend most of their time free of corrective lenses. In order to accomplish this, additional corrective procedures such as LASIK, PRK, or limbal relaxing incisions may be needed. This is particularly true for a patient that has astigmatism, as premium lenses such as Crystalens (or Tecnis or ReSTOR, for that matter) tht are designed to provide effective vision at all distances will not correct astigmatism.
Hi I'm looking for some hope and advice as what to do next. I had tecnis multifocal iol's implanted a year and a half ago (Sept 2010) along with an Astigmatic Keratotomy. Then three months later (Jan 2011) I had further lasek to reduce my remaining astigmatism. Prior to all ops my prescription was
Right eye: Sph +5.75 Cyl -2.75 Axis 92.5
Left eye: Sph +6.00 Cyl -2.50 Axis 90
After all ops my prescription is now:
Right eye: Sph: - 0.50 Cyl -1.25 Axis 105
Left eye: Sph :- 0.50 Cyl -1.00 Axis 100
When I was young I also had two squint operations on my left eye so my right eye has always been my stronger dominent eye.
I now feel that I just can't function properly. I feel that I'm off balance sometimes and that I do not have the vision that I had with glasses/contact lenses. My vision is sometimes blurred depending on how bright the day(light) is and I feel that I am wearing a pair of dirty glasses that I can't take off and clean.
Would the remaining prescription I have left be causing this? would further laser surgery correct this? could I have them replaced with toric monofocal iols.
Right eye: Sph +5.75 Cyl -2.75 Axis 92.5
Left eye: Sph +6.00 Cyl -2.50 Axis 90
After all ops my prescription is now:
Right eye: Sph: - 0.50 Cyl -1.25 Axis 105
Left eye: Sph :- 0.50 Cyl -1.00 Axis 100
When I was young I also had two squint operations on my left eye so my right eye has always been my stronger dominent eye.
I now feel that I just can't function properly. I feel that I'm off balance sometimes and that I do not have the vision that I had with glasses/contact lenses. My vision is sometimes blurred depending on how bright the day(light) is and I feel that I am wearing a pair of dirty glasses that I can't take off and clean.
Would the remaining prescription I have left be causing this? would further laser surgery correct this? could I have them replaced with toric monofocal iols.
I have had the cataract/Tecnis mutlifocal lens surgery on my left eye - exactly a month ago. I'm concerned that my reading vision is not good. I read for pleasure and was formerly an editor, so I was a professional reader. I have delayed having the second eye surgery, and I'm really torn about it. Difficulty reading would seriously affect my quality of life. I'm told that the second surgery will make a lot of difference, but I'm afraid to take the chance.
b
b
I am reading these posts and wondering why I did not do that before my surgery. I have the mufti focal tecnis IOL and I am hoping to get it removed soon. I will choose the mono focal and gladly wear glasses if needed. I have many problems including pain, burning, wavering vision, glare, star bursts and halos. My vision is worse. The first few weeks were miserable, and this has been going on for over 3 months. Try putting a contact lens in your eye with the wrong prescription ; that severely limits your function on a day to day basis and that would give you "some" idea of my experience with this lens. I think most people do not post negative results because they are so over whelmed with the bad experience,
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Eye Care Community
Top General Health Answerers
Kansas City, MO
Grand Prairie, TX
San Diego, CA
Discharge often isn't normal, and could mean an infection or an STD.
In this unique and fascinating report from Missouri Medicine, world-renowned expert Dr. Raymond Moody examines what really happens when we almost die.
Think a loved one may be experiencing hearing loss? Here are five warning signs to watch for.
When it comes to your health, timing is everything
We’ve got a crash course on metabolism basics.
Learn what you can do to avoid ski injury and other common winter sports injury.
