SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation and comparison of contrast sensitivity in patients with zaraccom ultraşex or F260 ıntraocular lens ınserted

Zaraccom ultraşex veya F260 göz içi lens takılan hastalarda kontrast duyarlılığın değerlendirilmesi ve karşılaştırılması

Haydar ERDOĞAN
Mustafa İlker TOKER
Ayşe ÖZEÇ VURAL
Ayşen TOPALKAYA
Mustafa Kemal ARICI
Bahadır ÇETİN
Pages
230–235
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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 results were statistically significantly greater for the test frequencies of mesopic without glare 1.5 (p=0.016) and 18 (p=0.005) cpd, mesopic with glare 6 (p=0.002) cpd, photopic without glare 1.5 (p=0.01), 3 (p=0.04), 6 (p=0.001) and 12 (p=0.001) cpd, photopic with glare 6 (p=0.01) and 12 (p=0.02) cpd (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: In this study, we evaluated the optic performance of Zaraccom UF intraocular lens (IOL) by comparing the contrast sensitivity of IOLs in photopic and mesopic lighting conditions in patients who were operated for cataract and inserted Zaraccom Ultraflex (UF) or Zaraccom F260 (F260) IOL.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In this prospective study, we included 60 eyes of 60 patients (Group 1: 30 patients UF, Group 2: 30 patients F260) who had undergone phacoemulsification with implantation of IOL in the posterior chamber between 2009 and 2010 in Ophthalmology Department at Cumhuriyet University.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results were statistically significantly greater for the test frequencies of mesopic without glare 1.5 (p=0.016) and 18 (p=0.005) cpd, mesopic with glare 6 (p=0.002) cpd, photopic without glare 1.5 (p=0.01), 3 (p=0.04), 6 (p=0.001) and 12 (p=0.001) cpd, photopic with glare 6 (p=0.01) and 12 (p=0.02) cpd (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, we evaluated the optic performance of Zaraccom UF intraocular lens (IOL) by comparing the contrast sensitivity of IOLs in photopic and mesopic lighting conditions in patients who were operated for cataract and inserted Zaraccom Ultraflex (UF) or Zaraccom F260 (F260) IOL. Methods: In this prospective study, we included 60 eyes of 60 patients (Group 1: 30 patients UF, Group 2: 30 patients F260) who had undergone phacoemulsification with implantation of IOL in the posterior chamber between 2009 and 2010 in Ophthalmology Department at Cumhuriyet University. The patients were examined routinely at the 1. day, 1. week and 1. month postoperatively. At the third month, the best-corrected visual acuity values were recorded; then,, the contrast sensi- tivity tests at 1.5, 3, 6, 12 and 18 cpd were examined in all patients in all frequencies in photopic (with and without glare) and mesopic (with and without glare) lighting conditions. Results: When comparing the contrast sensitivity results in the two groups, we found that UF group s values were higher in all spatial frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12 and 18 cpd). The results were statistically significantly greater for the test frequencies of mesopic without glare 1.5 (p=0.016) and 18 (p=0.005) cpd, mesopic with glare 6 (p=0.002) cpd, photopic without glare 1.5 (p=0.01), 3 (p=0.04), 6 (p=0.001) and 12 (p=0.001) cpd, photopic with glare 6 (p=0.01) and 12 (p=0.02) cpd (p

Özet

Amaç: Katarakt nedeni ile ameliyat edilen ve Zaraccom Ultraşex (UF) veya Zaraccom F260 (F260) marka göz içi mercek ta- kılan hastalarda fotopik ve mezopik ışık şartlarında merceklerin kontrast duyarlılığa etkisi karşılaştırılarak UF merceğin optik kalitesini değerlendirmek. Yöntem: Prospektif olarak yapılan bu çalışmaya, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Göz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalında 2009-2010 yılların- da komplikasyonsuz Fakoemülsifikasyon ve arka kamara kapsül içine göz içi lensi (GiL) implante edilen toplam 60 hastanın 60 gözü (Grup 1: 30 hasta UF, Grup 2: 30 hasta F260) alındı. Postoperatif l. gün, 1. hafta ve 1. ayda rutin izlem muayeneleri yapıl- dı. 3. ayda ise en iyi düzeltilmiş görme keskinliği değerleri kaydedildikten sonra tüm hastalara fotopik (kamaşmalı-kamaşmasız) ve mezopik (kamaşmalı-kamaşmasız) olmak üzere 1.5, 3, 6, 12 ve 18 devir/derecede kontrast duyarlılık testleri uygulandı. Bulgular: iki grubun kontrast duyarlılık sonuçları karşılaştırıldığında bütün uzaysal frekanslarda (1,5; 3; 6; 12; 18 devir/derece) UF grubunun değerleri daha yüksek bulundu. Bu yükseklik; mezopik kamaşmasız 1.5 (p=0,016) ve 18 (p=0,005) devir/derece- de, mezopik kamaşmalı 6 (p=0,002) devir/derecede, fotopik kamaşmasız 1,5 (p=0,01); 3 (p=0,04); 6 (p=0,001) ve 12 (p=0,001) devir/derecede, fotopik kamaşmalı 6 (p=0,01) ve 12 (p=0,02) devir/derecede istatistiksel olarak anlamlı idi (p

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDOĞAN, H., TOKER, M. İ., VURAL, A. Ö., TOPALKAYA, A., ARICI, M. K., ÇETİN, B. (2022). Evaluation and comparison of contrast sensitivity in patients with zaraccom ultraşex or F260 ıntraocular lens ınserted. Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 4, 230–235. https://ajindex.com/articles/638354

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Jindra LF, Zemon V. Contrast sensitivity testing: a more complete assessment of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1989;15:141-8. Mannis MJ. Making sense of contrast sensitivity testing. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:627-9. Arden GB. The importance of measuring contrast sensitivity in cases of visual disturbance. Br J Ophthalmol. 1978;62:198-209.
  2. Trick GL, Burde RM, Gordon MO, Santiago JV, Kilo C. The relationship between hue discrimination andcontrast sensitivity in patients with diabetes mellitus. Opthalmology. 1988;95:693-8.
  3. Loshin DS, White J. Contrast sensitivity: The visual rehabilitation of the patient with macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;1021303- 6. Marmor MF. Contrast sensitivity versus visual acuity in retinal disease. Br J Ophthalmol. 1986;70:553-9.
  4. Furuskog P, Nilsson B.Contrast sensitivity in patients with posterior chamber intraocular implants. Acta Ophlalmol. 1988;66:438-44.
  5. Hess RF, Woo GC, White PD.Contrast attenuation characteristics of iris elipped intraocular lens implants in situ. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985;69:129-35.
  6. Howe JW, Mitchell KW, Mahabaleswara M, Abdel-Khalek MN. Visual evoked potential latency and contrast sensitivity in patients with pos- terior chamber intraocular lens implants. Br J Ophthalmol. 1986;70:890-4. Miller D. Refradion and Clinical Optics: Glare ond Contrast sensitivity testing. Duane's Ophthalmology. Tamman W, Jaeger EA Hagerstown. JB Lippincott company 2009;1:35. Lundstram M, Outcomes of cataract surgery. Ophthalmology Yanoff M, Duker J St Louis. Mosby Co 2009;5:15. Thayaparan K, Crossland MD, Rubin GS. Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:749-52.
  7. Terzi E, Bühren J, Wesemann W, Kohnen T [Frankfurt- Freiburg Contrast and Acuity Test System (FF-CATS). A new test to determine contrast sensitivity under variable ambient and glare luminance lev- els]. Ophthalmologe. 2005;102:507-13.
  8. Hitchcock EM, Dick RB, Krieg EF. Visual contrast sensitivity testing: a comparison of two F. A. C. T. test types. Neurotoxicol and Teratol. 2004;26:271-7.
  9. Bühren J, Terzi E, Bach M, Wesemann W, Kohnen T. Measuring con- trast sensitivity under different lighting conditions: comparison of three tests. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:290-8. Mainster MA. Contemporary optics and ocular pathology. Surv Ophthalmol. 1978;23:135-42.
  10. Ross JE, Clarke DD, Bron AJ. Effect of age on contrast sensitivity func- tion: uniocular and binocular findings. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985;69:51-6.
  11. Negishi K, Ohnuma K, Hirayama N,