Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2023; 240(08): 981-988
DOI: 10.1055/a-2079-1692
Übersicht/Review

Reversible Multifokalität durch Polypseudophakie

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Isabella Diana Baur 
International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, Deutschland
,
Grzegorz Labuz
International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, Deutschland
,
Timur Mert Yildirim 
International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, Deutschland
,
Gerd U. Auffarth
International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, Deutschland
,
Ramin Khoramnia 
International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, Deutschland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die kombinierte Implantation einer monofokalen oder monofokal-torischen Intraokularlinse (IOL) in den Kapselsack und einer multifokalen IOL in den Sulcus ciliaris (sog. Duett-Verfahren) erlaubt es, eine Multifokalität zu erzeugen, die einfacher reversibel ist als die Implantation einer kapselsackfixierten multifokalen IOL. Die optische Qualität und Ergebnisse mit dem Duett-Verfahren sind äquivalent zu denen einer kapselsackfixierten multifokalen Optik. Patienten, bei denen eine Unverträglichkeit der Nebenwirkungen multifokaler Optiken auftritt, oder die im Laufe ihres Lebens eine okuläre Erkrankung mit Funktionsverlust, wie z. B. eine altersbedingte Makuladegeneration (AMD) oder ein Glaukom entwickeln, können von der einfacheren Reversibilität des Verfahrens profitieren.

Schlüsselwörter

Multifokalität - Presbyopiekorrektur - Reversibilität


Publication History

Received: 17 November 2022

Accepted: 10 April 2023

Article published online:
30 June 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Gayton JL, Sanders VN. Implanting two posterior chamber intraocular lenses in a case of microphthalmos. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993; 19: 776-777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gayton JL, Apple DJ, Peng Q. et al. Interlenticular opacification: clinicopathological correlation of a complication of posterior chamber piggyback intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 330-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Werner L, Apple DJ, Pandey SK. et al. Analysis of elements of interlenticular opacification. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 320-326
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hesse RJ. Refractive changes produced by capsule contraction after piggyback acrylic intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28: 2229-2230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kahraman G, Amon M. New supplementary intraocular lens for refractive enhancement in pseudophakic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36: 1090-1094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gerten G, Kermani O, Schmiedt K. et al. Dual intraocular lens implantation: Monofocal lens in the bag and additional diffractive multifocal lens in the sulcus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 2136-2143 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.07.014.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Thomas BC, Auffarth GU, Reiter J. et al. Implantation of three-piece silicone toric additive IOLs in challenging clinical cases with high astigmatism. J Refract Surg 2013; 29: 187-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Abela-Formanek C, Amon M, Schild G. et al. Uveal and capsular biocompatibility of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28: 50-61 DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01122-1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Richter-Mueksch S, Kahraman G, Amon M. et al. Uveal and capsular biocompatibility after implantation of sharp-edged hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 1414-1418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gundersen KG, Potvin R. Refractive and visual outcomes after implantation of a secondary toric sulcus intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 2020; 14: 1337-1342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gundersen KG, Potvin R. A review of results after implantation of a secondary intraocular lens to correct residual refractive error after cataract surgery. Clin Ophthalmol 2017; 11: 1791-1796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Huerva V. Piggyback multifocal IOLs for a hyperopic–presbyopic surprise after cataract surgery in high myopic patients. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014; 37: 57-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gundersen KG, Gjerdrum B, Potvin R. Efficacy of a Secondary Trifocal Sulcus IOL in Providing Near and Intermediate Vision in Patients with Prior Myopic Laser Vision Correction and Cataract Surgery. Clin Ophthalmol 2022; 16: 2219-2226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gundersen KG, Potvin R. Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Implantation of a Secondary Sulcus Intraocular Lens with an Extended Depth of Focus. Clin Ophthalmol 2022; 16: 1861-1869 DOI: 10.2147/opth.S366145.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Scharioth GB. New add-on intraocular lens for patients with age-related macular degeneration. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41: 1559-1563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Khoramnia R, Yildirim TM, Son HS. et al. Reversible Trifokalität durch das Duett-Verfahren. Ophthalmologe 2020; 117: 999-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Baur ID, Auffarth GU, Łabuz G. et al. Clinical outcomes in patients after duet procedure for reversible trifocality using a supplementary trifocal IOL. Am J Ophthalmol 2022; 241: 217-226 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2022.04.021.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Feldhaus L, Mayer WJ, Siedlecki J. et al. Myope multifokale Duett-Implantation zur Korrektur von Presbyopie und Myopie. Ophthalmologie 2022; DOI: 10.1007/s00347-022-01692-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Yildirim TM, Auffarth GU, Son HS. et al. Duettverfahren bei hoher Myopie zum Erreichen einer reversiblen Multifokalität. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2020; 237: 858-960 DOI: 10.1055/a-0916-8816.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Son HS, Tandogan T, Liebing S. et al. In vitro optical quality measurements of three intraocular lens models having identical platform. BMC Ophthalmol 2017; 17: 108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gatinel D, Houbrechts Y. Comparison of bifocal and trifocal diffractive and refractive intraocular lenses using an optical bench. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013; 39: 1093-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cochener B. Prospective clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 2016; 32: 146-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jonker SM, Bauer NJ, Makhotkina NY. et al. Comparison of a trifocal intraocular lens with a + 3.0 D bifocal IOL: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41: 1631-1640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rodov L, Reitblat O, Levy A. et al. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction for trifocal, extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 2019; 35: 434-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Monaco G, Gari M, Di Censo F. et al. Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: trifocal versus extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017; 43: 737-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Breyer DR, Kaymak H, Ax T. et al. Multifocal intraocular lenses and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2017; 6: 339-349
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ferreira TB, Ribeiro FJ, Silva D. et al. Comparison of refractive and visual outcomes of 3 presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refrac Surg 2022; 48: 280-287 DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000743.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gabrić N, Gabrić I, Gabrić K. et al. Clinical Outcomes With a New Continuous Range of Vision Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lens. J Refract Surg 2021; 37: 256-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Baur ID, Auffarth GU, Łabuz G. et al. Clinical Evaluation of Reading Performance in Refractive Lens Exchange with a Diffractive Continuous-Range-Of-Vision Intraocular Lens. Am J Ophthalmol 2023; 250: 25-27 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.01.011.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 de Vries NE, Webers CA, Touwslager WR. et al. Dissatisfaction after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011; 37: 859-865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Woodward MA, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 992-997
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mamalis N, Brubaker J, Davis D. et al. Complications of foldable intraocular lenses requiring explantation or secondary intervention–2007 survey update. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 1584-1591 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.05.046.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Yildirim TM, Auffarth GU, Son HS. et al. Bilateral trifocal IOL implantation in a pediatric case of cataract following steroid-therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2018; 13: 46-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Li JQ, Welchowski T, Schmid M. et al. Prevalence and incidence of age-related macular degeneration in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2020; 104: 1077-1084
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kolko M, Horwitz A, Thygesen J. et al. The prevalence and incidence of glaucoma in Denmark in a fifteen year period: a nationwide study. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0132048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Leysen I, Bartholomeeusen E, Coeckelbergh T. et al. Surgical outcomes of intraocular lens exchange: five-year study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 1013-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Marques FF, Marques DM, Osher RH. et al. Longitudinal study of intraocular lens exchange. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 254-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Chang DF, Masket S, Miller KM. et al. Complications of sulcus placement of single-piece acrylic intraocular lenses: recommendations for backup IOL implantation following posterior capsule rupture. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 1445-1458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Mamalis N, Crandall AS, Pulsipher MW. et al. Intraocular lens explantation and exchange: a review of lens styles, clinical indications, clinical results, and visual outcome. J Cataract Refract Surg 1991; 17: 811-818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Baur ID, Auffarth GU, Yildirim TM. et al. Reversibility of the duet procedure: Bilateral exchange of a supplementary trifocal sulcus-fixated intraocular lens for correction of a postoperative refractive error. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2020; 20: 100957 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2020.100957.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Khoramnia R, Yildirim TM, Baur I. et al. Duet procedure to achieve reversible trifocality in a young patient with hereditary hyperferritinemia-cataract syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2021; 21: 101026 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2021.101026.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Khoramnia R, Auffarth GU, Rabsilber TM. et al. Implantation of a multifocal toric intraocular lens with a surface-embedded near segment after repeated LASIK treatments. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 2049-2052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Manzouri B, Dari ML, Claoué C. Supplementary IOLs: monofocal and multifocal, their applications and limitations. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2017; 6: 358-363
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Falzon K, Stewart OG. Correction of undesirable pseudophakic refractive error with the Sulcoflex intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2012; 28: 614-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Khan MI, Muhtaseb M. Performance of the Sulcoflex piggyback intraocular lens in pseudophakic patients. J Refract Surg 2011; 27: 693-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Palomino-Bautista C, Sánchez-Jean R, Gonzalez DC. et al. Spectacle independence for pseudophakic patients–experience with a trifocal supplementary add-on intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 2020; 14: 1043-1054 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S238553.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Albayrak S, Comba ÖB, Karakaya M. Visual performance and patient satisfaction following the implantation of a novel trifocal supplementary intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol 2021; 31: 2346-2352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Cassagne M, Porterie M, Gauthier L. et al. Primary sulcus implantation of a diffractive multifocal pseudophakic piggyback intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2018; 44: 266-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Łabuz G, Auffarth GU, Knorz MC. et al. Trifocality achieved through polypseudophakia: optical quality and light loss compared with a Single trifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2020; 36: 570-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Sirohi RS. Introduction to Optical Metrology. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2017
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Schrecker J, Zoric K, Meßner A. et al. Effect of interface reflection in pseudophakic eyes with an additional refractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 1650-1656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Erie JC, Bandhauer MH, McLaren JW. Analysis of postoperative glare and intraocular lens design. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 614-621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Valvecchia G, Cervantes-Coste G, Asis O. et al. Clinical outcomes of the piggyback secondary implantation of a novel multifocal lens in the ciliary sulcus: a case series. Eur J Ophthalmol 2023; 33: 1367-1372 DOI: 10.1177/11206721211029474.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Prager F, Amon M, Wiesinger J. et al. Capsular bag–fixated and ciliary sulcus-fixated intraocular lens centration after supplementary intraocular lens implantation in the same eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017; 43: 643-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Łabuz G, Auffarth GU, Yan W. et al. Simulations of Decentration and Tilt of a Supplementary Sulcus-Fixated Intraocular Lens in a Polypseudophakic Combination Using Ray-Tracing Software. Photonics 2021; 8: 309 DOI: 10.3390/photonics8080309.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 McLintock CA, McKelvie J, Niyazmand H. et al. Outcomes of a toric monofocal piggyback intraocular lens for residual astigmatic refractive error in pseudophakic eyes. Curr Eye Res 2022; 47: 443-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 McLintock CA, McKelvie J, Gatzioufas Z. et al. Outcomes of toric supplementary intraocular lenses for residual astigmatic refractive error in pseudophakic eyes. Int Ophthalmol 2019; 39: 1965-1972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Meyer JJ, Kim BZ, Ziaei M. et al. Postoperative rotation of supplementary sulcus-supported toric intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017; 43: 285-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar