Presbyopia Surgical Treatments: Results of Visual Outcomes and Vision Related Quality of Life (VQoL)

Authors: Bader AlQahtani, Mona Koaik. Ottawa Eye Institute.

Author Disclosure Block: B. AlQahtani: None. M. Koaik: None.

Title: Presbyopia Surgical Treatments: Results of Visual Outcomes and Vision Related Quality of Life (VQoL)

Abstract Body:

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the visual outcomes and vision related quality of life in patients who have undergone laser-based (Monovision LVC) or lens-based (Multifocal or EDoF IOLs) presbyopia surgical treatment using the VQoL questionnaire.
Study Design: This study was a multi-centre, retrospective, cross-sectional chart review and questionnaire-based study
Methods: All patients who underwent laser vision correction (LVC) with monovision treatment at the University of Ottawa Eye Institute and Focus Eye Center (Ottawa) between January 1^st, 2018 and December 31^st, 2020, or who underwent refractive clear lens extraction procedures (CLE) with premium intraocular lens placement (Multifocal or EDoF IOLs) were included in the study. All clinical data was retrieved from the electronic medical record (EMR) system while the vision related quality of life (VQoL) questionnaire was conducted through phone interview using the Visual Functioning Index (VF-14). The relationship of demographic data, preoperative and postoperative clinical results with VQoL were evaluated using linear and multi-regression analysis.
Results: Postoperatively, the percentage of patients with binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better, for monovision LVC and CLE with premium lenses, respectively, was as follows: myopia: 89.7% vs 84.7% (P = .21), plano presbyopia: 91.5% vs 88.6% (P = .90), and hyperopia: 79.5% vs 84.2% (P = .13). For near vision, the percentage with binocular near visual acuity of 20/40 or better (J5) at 40 cm was as follows: myopia: 93.7% vs 90.7% (P < .08), plano presbyopia: 96.7% vs 94.8% (P = .32), and hyperopia: 93.6% vs 95.7% (P = .77). There was no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction between monovision LVC and CLE with premium lenses (94.3% for monovision LVC vs 89.1% for premium lenses, P <.01). All myopic patients with refractive lens exchange experienced more postoperative visual phenomena than patients with monovision LVC.
Conclusions: Monovision LVC and refractive lens exchange with premium intraocular lenses are both reasonable options for presbyopic patients with comparable postoperative VQoL.