SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Archives of Medical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 1

A Comparative Study of Two Different Accommodative Intraocular Lenses: The Visual and Accommodative Amplitude Outcomes

Ulviye YİĞİT
İsmail Umut ONUR
Abdullah ÖZKAYA
Hatice Nur TARAKÇIOĞLU
Pages
32–38
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

The accommodation range of Tetraflex and Tek-clear lenses was comparable.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To compare distance and near visual acuity along with accommodative amplitude in eyes implanted with the Tetraflex and the Tek-clear accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOLs).Methods: Comparative, prospective, non-randomized study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Thirty-eight eyes of 26 patients implanted with the Tetraflex (17 eyes) and Tek-clear (21 eyes) AIOLs were enrolled.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The accommodation range of Tetraflex and Tek-clear lenses was comparable.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To compare distance and near visual acuity along with accommodative amplitude in eyes implanted with the Tetraflex and the Tek-clear accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOLs).Methods: Comparative, prospective, non-randomized study. Thirty-eight eyes of 26 patients implanted with the Tetraflex (17 eyes) and Tek-clear (21 eyes) AIOLs were enrolled. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), best-corrected near visual acuity (BCNVA) and spherical equivalent refraction were the parameters evaluated postoperatively. Also, the accommodative amplitude was assessed with subjective defocus method and objective anterior chamber depth measurement before and after the topical application of pilocarpine using a Scheimpflug-Placido disc topographer at postoperative month 3 and 6.Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the two AIOL types in regards to BCDVA, DCNVA, and BCNVA at months 1, 3, and 6 (p>0.05). The mean UCDVA was significantly better in Tetraflex implanted eyes (p=0.001, p=0.002, p=0.008), whereas the mean UCNVA was significantly better in Tek-clear implanted eyes (p=0.008, p=0.01, p0.05). Conclusion: The Tetraflex accommodative IOL seemed to be better at UCDVA, whereas Tek-clear seemed better at UCNVA. The accommodation range of Tetraflex and Tek-clear lenses was comparable.

🔖

Cite This Article

YİĞİT, U., ONUR, İ. U., ÖZKAYA, A., TARAKÇIOĞLU, H. N. (2022). A Comparative Study of Two Different Accommodative Intraocular Lenses: The Visual and Accommodative Amplitude Outcomes. European Archives of Medical Research, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 1, 32–38. https://ajindex.com/articles/510384

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Doane JF, Jackson RT. Accommodative intraocular lenses: considerations on use, function and design. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2007;18:318-24
  2. Martin H, Guthoff R, Terwee T, Schmitz KP. Comparision of the accomodation theories of Coleman and of Helmholtz by finite element simulations. Vis Research 2005;45:2910-5
  3. Coleman J, Fish S. Presbyopia, accomodation, and the mature catenary. Ophtalmol 2001;108:1544-51
  4. Ostrin LA, Glasser A. Accommodation measurements in a prepresbyopic and presbyopic population. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:1435-44
  5. Papadopoulos PA, Papadopoulos AP. Current management of presbyopia. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2014;21:10-7
  6. Greenwood M, Bafna S, Thompson V. Surgical Correction of Presbyopia: Lenticular, Corneal, and Scleral Approaches. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2016;56:149-66
  7. Alió JL, Alió Del Barrio JL, Vega-Estrada A. Accommodative intraocular lenses: where are we and where we are going. Eye Vis (Lond) 2017;4:16
  8. Pepose JS, Burke J, Qazi M. Accommodating Intraocular Lenses. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2017;6:350-7
  9. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Férnandez-Buenaga R, Pikkel J, Maldonado M. Multifocal intraocular lenses: An overview. Surv Ophthalmol 2017;62:611-34
  10. Beiko GH. Comparison of visual results with accommodating intraocular lenses versus mini-monovision with a monofocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:48-55
  11. Eğrilmez S, Eğrilmez ED, Akkın C, Kaskaloglu M, Yagcı A. Uluslararası standartlara uygun bir Türkçe yakın okuma eşeli. T Oft Gaz 2004;34:404- 12
  12. Nemeth G, Lipecz A, Szalai E, Berta A, Modis L Jr. Accommodation in phakic and pseudophakic eyes measured with subjective and objective methods. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1534-42
  13. Leydolt C, Menapace R, Stifter EM, Prinz A, Neumayer T. Effect of primary posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorrhexis with posterior optic buttonholing on pilocapine-induced IOL shift. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38:1895-901
  14. Raj SM, Vasavada AR, Johar K, Vasavada VA, Vasavada VA. Post-Operative Capsular Opacification: A Review. Int J Biomed Sci 2007;3:237-50
  15. Sadoughi MM, Einnollahi B, Roshandel D, Sarimohammadli M, Feizi S. Visual and refractive outcomes of phacoemulsification with implantation of accommodating versus standard monofocal intraocular lenses. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2015;10:370-4
  16. Zare Mehrjerdi MA, Mohebbi M, Zandian M. Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2017;12: