SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2007 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of accommodative intraocular lenses with monofocal intraocular lenses for visual functions in early term after cataract operations

Katarakt operasyonları sonrası erken dönemde akomodatif göz içi lenslerin monofokal göz içi lenslerle görme fonksiyonları yönünden karşılaştırılması

Cem MESÇİ
Hasan ERBİL
Ayşe SÖNMEZ
Hüseyin ACAR
Pages
47–50
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: In our short term study , it was found that patients with accommodative IOLs had better visual acuties for near than the patients with monofocal IOLs as a result of higher values of accommodative amplitudes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To compare accomodative amplitudes and visual functions of accomodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) with monofocal IOLs after bilateral cataract operations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: In this prospective clinical study 20 eyes of 10 cataract patients were operated by phacoemulsification technique and Humanoptics accommodative 1CU lenses were implanted bilaterally.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In our short term study , it was found that patients with accommodative IOLs had better visual acuties for near than the patients with monofocal IOLs as a result of higher values of accommodative amplitudes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Lens implantasyonu · göz içi · Lensler

Abstract

Purpose: To compare accomodative amplitudes and visual functions of accomodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) with monofocal IOLs after bilateral cataract operations. Materials and Methods: In this prospective clinical study 20 eyes of 10 cataract patients were operated by phacoemulsification technique and Humanoptics accommodative 1CU lenses were implanted bilaterally. In control group, 20 eyes of 10 patients were operated and monofocal foldable acrylic IOLs (Alcon Acrysoft) were implanted bilaterally. Postoperatively at the end of 3rd month, binocular uncorrected visual acuities (UCVA) for distance, binocular uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuities (DCVA) for near were measured. Accommodative amplitudes were measured by retinoscopy and defocusing methods. Results: At the end of 3rd month, there was no statistically significant difference between the lens groups for mean binocular UCVA for distance and also for mean astigmatic and spheric refraction values (P>0.05) . Binocular mean UCVA (0.58±0.084) and DCVA for near (0.628±0.067 Snellen lines) in accommodative lens group were statistically higher than the values of monofocal group respectively (0.331±0.059) (0.32±0.056) (p=0.0001). Mean accommodative amplitude of accommodative lens group was 1.362±0.189 D and of monofocal lens group was 0.362±0.2 D by retinoscopy. By defocusing method, accomodative amplitude was 1.92±0.26 D for accommodative lenses, 0.587±0.218 D for monofocal lenses. The accommodative amplitudes of accommodative lenses were statistically higher than monofocal lenses (p=0.0001). Proportion of spectacle usage was 100% for monofocal IOLs and 50% for accommodative IOLs. Conclusion: In our short term study , it was found that patients with accommodative IOLs had better visual acuties for near than the patients with monofocal IOLs as a result of higher values of accommodative amplitudes. But to determine the real success with accomodative IOLs , studies with more patients and longer follow up time are necessary.

Özet

Amaç: Katarakt hastalarında bilateral akomodatif göz içi lens (GİL) implantasyonu sonrası görme değerleri ve akomodasyon amplitüdlerinin monofokal GİL’lerle karşılaştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntem: On katarakt hastasının 20 gözüne fakoemülsifikasyon sonrası Humanoptics akomodatif 1CU® lens implantasyonu, kontrol grubundaki 10 hastanın 20 gözüne monofokal akrilik katlanabilir GİL (Alcon Acrysoft) implantasyonu yapıldı. Hastaların 3 ay sürede aralıklarla rutin göz muayeneleri ve refraktif ölçümleri yapıldı. Binokular düzeltilmemiş uzak, düzeltilmemiş yakın, uzak düzeltmeli yakın görme keskinlikleri saptandı. Her bir göz için akomodasyon amplitüdleri, defokus ve retinoskopi yöntemi ile ölçüldü. Bulgular: Ameliyatlar sonrası 3. ayda iki lens grubu arasında, astigmatik ve sferik eş değer refraksiyon ortalamaları ve binoküler düzeltme yapılmamış uzak görme keskinliği ortalamaları arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır (p>0.05). Düzeltme yapılmamış binoküler yakın görme keskinliklerinin ortalaması akomodatif grupta 0.58±0.084 monofokal grupta 0.331±0.059 Snellen sırası, uzak düzeltmeli yakın görme keskinliği ortalaması akomodatif grupta 0.628±0.067 monofokal grupta 0.32±0.059 Snellen sırası olarak ölçülmüştür. Yakın görme keskinlikleri ortalaması akomodatif lenslerin lehine istatistiksel olarak anlamlı yüksek saptanmıştır (p=0.0001). Retinoskopiyle akomodasyon amplitüd ortalaması akomodatif grupta 1.36±0.189 D monofokal grupta 0.362±0.2 D, defokus yöntemi ile akomodatif grupta 1.92±0.26 D monofokal grupta 0.58±0.218 D olarak ölçülmüştür. Ölçümler akomodatif lensler lehine istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede yüksek olarak bulunmuştur (p=0.0001). Gözlük kullanım oranı akomodatif lensli olgularda %50, monofokal lenli olgularda %100 olarak saptanmıştır. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda akomodatif lenslerle yakın görme keskinliklerini ve akomodasyon amplitüdlerini ameliyatlar sonrası erken dönemde konvansiyonel monofokal lenslere göre anlamlı olarak daha yüksek olarak saptadık. Ancak bu lenslerin gerçek başarısını görmek için daha fazla sayıda olgu ile daha uzun dönemli çalışmaların yapılmasının gerekli olduğunu düşünmekteyiz.

🔖

Cite This Article

MESÇİ, C., ERBİL, H., SÖNMEZ, A., ACAR, H. (2007). Comparison of accommodative intraocular lenses with monofocal intraocular lenses for visual functions in early term after cataract operations. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 47–50. https://ajindex.com/articles/226662

References (12)

  1. Cumming JS, Slade SG, Chayet A,. AT-45 Study Group: Clinical evaluation of the model AT-45 silicone accomodating intraocular lens: results of feasibility and initial phase of a FDA clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:2005-2009.
  2. Javitt JC, Steinert RF: Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocu­ lar lens implantation: a multinational clinical, functional, and qu­ ality of life outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2040-2048.
  3. Pieh S, Lackner B, Hanselmayer G, et al.: Halo size under distan­ ce and near conditions in refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:816-821.
  4. Schmitz S, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, et al.: Contrast sensitivity and glare disability by halogen light after monofocal and multifo­ cal lens implantation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1109-1112.
  5. Montes-Mico R, Alio Jorge L: Distance and near contrast sensiti­ vity function after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Ca­ taract Refract Surg. 2003;29:703-711.
  6. Navarro R, Ferro M, Artal P, et al.: Modulation transfer functions of eyes implanted with intraocular lenses. Appl Opt. 1993,32:6359- 6367. Artal P, Marcos S, Navarro R, et al.: Through focus image quality of eyes implanted with monofocal and multifocal intraocular len­ ses. Opt Eng. 1995;34:772-779.
  7. Charman WN, Murray IJ, Nacer M: Theoretical and practical performance of a concentric bifocal implant lens. Vision Res. 1998;38:2841-2853.
  8. Küchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, et al.: Comparison of 6- moth results of implantation of the 1CU accommodative intra­ ocular lens with conventional intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:318-324.
  9. Mastropasqua L, Toto L, Nubile M, Falconio G et al.: Clinical study of the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:1307-1312.
  10. Montes-Mico R, Espana E, Bueno I, et al.: Visual performans with multifocal intraocular lenses. Mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance and near conditions. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:85- 96. Küchle M, Langenbucher A, Gusek-Schneider GC, et al.: First results of implantation of a new,potentially accommodative pos­ terior chamber intraocular lens (in German). Klin Monatsbl Au genheilkd. 2001;218:603-608. Lindstrom RL: FDA study update: one-year results from 671 pati­ ents with 3M multifocal IOL Ophthalmology. 1993,100:91-97.
  11. Trindade F, Oliveira A, Frasson: Benefit of against the-rule as­ tigmatism to uncorrected near acuity. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997;23:82-85.
  12. Fukuyama M, Oshika T, Amano S, et al.: Relationship between ap