Low near add multifocality, small amounts of monovision better, more natural, safer for patients
TOKYO — Low near add multifocal lenses and mini-monovision are currently the preferred options of both patients and physicians. They are still a compromise, but more natural than previous multifocal implants, safer and better accepted by the majority of patients, according to Oliver Findl, MD, speaking at the World Ophthalmology Congress.
“The trend is to go more for intermediate vision nowadays because of the increased use of PCs, iPhones and iPads. The patients I see in my practice don’t mind wearing reading glasses at home for long-time reading. But they want to go out of the house and not wear glasses, use their electronic devices, do their shopping and see well,” he said.
Low near add multifocal lenses are a safe solution. There is no risk of dysphotopsia or trouble with adaptation, and contrast sensitivity is good.
“This is what I tell my patients,” Findl said. “Also, monovision is safe the way I do it, with just 1 D to 1.25 D difference between the eyes. However, I also tell them that they will not be able to do long-time reading, to read small print and to read with bad lighting.”
These “softer” options, in his opinion, also are better when it comes to potential age-related eye conditions such as macular degeneration. A multifocal lens with a +3 D or +4 D near add would interfere detrimentally with the degenerating retinal function.
Findl and colleagues are currently conducting a monocentric, prospective trial to compare monovision and low near add multifocality using the new Lentis Comfort (Oculentis).
“We are halfway through the trial, and results will be released next year,” he said.
Disclosure: The institution where Findl works receives an unrestricted grant for the trial.