Anisometropia After Cataract Surgery: Predictable Risk or Avoidable Harm

Blurred image

Anisometropia following cataract surgery is a frequent source of patient dissatisfaction and, increasingly, medico-legal dispute. While refractive imbalance between eyes is a well-recognised consequence of staged bilateral cataract surgery, litigation often arises when patients feel unprepared for its functional impact.

This blog is written for surgeons, medical experts, and those involved in medico-legal assessment. It examines how anisometropia is analysed retrospectively by the court and how experts distinguish between an accepted, temporary consequence of treatment and avoidable harm.

Understanding Anisometropia in Cataract Pathways

Anisometropia occurs when there is a significant refractive difference between the operated and unoperated eye. In cataract practice, this most commonly arises after first-eye surgery when the fellow eye remains cataractous or highly ametropic.

Clinically, anisometropia is expected in many staged cataract pathways. Medico-legally, the issue is not its occurrence, but whether it was anticipated, discussed, and appropriately managed.

Functional Impact Matters More Than Dioptres

From a patient perspective, anisometropia is rarely experienced as a numerical refractive difference. It is experienced functionally.

Common difficulties include:

• loss of binocular vision

• diplopia or visual discomfort

• imbalance when walking or using stairs

• difficulty driving or reading

• intolerance of spectacle correction

Expert witnesses are often asked to consider whether these functional consequences were foreseeable and whether patients were adequately prepared for them.

Consent and Expectation Management

A central question in anisometropia claims is whether the patient understood that first-eye surgery might temporarily worsen their overall visual function.

Consent discussions should explore:

• the likelihood of refractive imbalance

• the impact on daily activities

• the duration of symptoms

• interim management options

• the plan and timing for second-eye surgery

Where these discussions are absent or poorly documented, courts may conclude that anisometropia was not meaningfully explained.

Timing of Second-Eye Surgery

Delay between first and second-eye surgery is a frequent focus of medico-legal scrutiny. While delays may be driven by service pressures or medical factors, experts are often asked to assess whether the interval was reasonable in the circumstances.

Key considerations include:

• severity of anisometropia

• patient symptoms and functional impairment

• availability of interim solutions

• whether delay exacerbated harm

Prolonged delay without reassessment or mitigation may be difficult to defend.

Interim Management Options

Anisometropia can often be managed temporarily through non-surgical means. Failure to discuss or offer these options may contribute to claims.

Interim strategies include:

• contact lens use in the unoperated eye

• refractive adjustment of spectacles

• patching in selected cases

• prioritisation of second-eye surgery

Expert witnesses may be asked whether reasonable steps were taken to minimise functional impact during the interim period.

First-Eye Refractive Outcomes and Planning

An unexpected refractive result in the first eye can exacerbate anisometropia. In such cases, courts examine whether the refractive outcome prompted reconsideration of the second-eye plan.

Issues frequently explored include:

• whether prediction error was recognised

• whether the second-eye target was adjusted

• whether further discussion occurred with the patient

Proceeding without reassessment may suggest a failure to adapt to evolving circumstances.

Causation and Avoidability

Anisometropia itself is not negligence. The medico-legal analysis focuses on whether harm arose from how it was handled.

Experts are asked to consider:

• whether the patient would have proceeded with surgery had they been properly informed

• whether earlier second-eye surgery would have reduced harm

• whether interim management would have mitigated symptoms

This requires careful separation of unavoidable consequences from avoidable functional loss.

Teaching Point for Surgeons and Experts

Anisometropia becomes a medico-legal issue when it surprises the patient or persists without appropriate response.

For surgeons, proactive discussion and planning reduce risk.For expert witnesses, clear understanding of cataract pathways and refractive decision-making is essential to assist the court objectively.

Conclusion

Anisometropia following cataract surgery sits in a grey zone between expected consequence and potential harm. Courts focus not on its existence, but on whether it was anticipated, explained, and managed reasonably.

When anisometropia is approached transparently and responsively, it is usually defensible. When it is overlooked or underestimated, it can become the focal point of litigation. Understanding this distinction is essential for both clinicians and expert witnesses involved in cataract-related claims.