Literature DB >> 11004093

Contrast sensitivity and glare disability by halogen light after monofocal and multifocal lens implantation.

S Schmitz1, H B Dick, F Krummenauer, O Schwenn, R Krist.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Standard examination of contrast sensitivity under conditions of glare disability is performed with incandescent light. A new halogen glare test that simulates glare as seen with oncoming vehicle headlights was used to measure glare disability in patients implanted with multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).
METHODS: 28 patients with an average age of 69 years (SD 12 years) were implanted with a monofocal IOL (SI-40NB, Allergan) and 28 patients with an average of 66 years (12 years) were implanted with a refractive multifocal IOL (Array-SA-40N, Allergan). All patients were followed for 5 months postoperatively. Contrast sensitivity at four spatial frequencies (3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree, cpd) with and without a glare source were measured using the halogen glare test (CSV-1000 HGT). Statistical analysis was performed using the two sample Wilcoxon test. The local significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: When tested at the lowest spatial frequency (3 cpd) without halogen glare, contrast sensitivity was lower in the multifocal group than in the monofocal group (p=0.0292). With additional glare, there was no difference between both groups. At all other spatial frequencies (6, 12, and 18 cpd), when tested without halogen glare (6 cpd, p=0.5250; 12 cpd, p=0.8483; 18 cpd, p=0.9496) and with moderate (3 cpd, p=0.7993; 6 cpd, p=0.4639; 12 cpd, p=0.7456; 18 cpd, p=1.0) and high halogen glare (3 cpd, p=0. 1513; 6 cpd, p=0.2016; 12 cpd, p=0.3069; 18 cpd, p=0.9933), there was no statistically significant difference between groups. Patients in both groups of age 70 or older had reduced contrast sensitivity without halogen glare and with moderate and strong glare. When monofocal and multifocal patients older than 70 years of age were analysed separately, there was no statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity with and without glare. Astigmatism >1 dioptre had no significant influence on contrast sensitivity and glare disability when monofocal and multifocal eyes were compared.
CONCLUSION: Reduced contrast sensitivity was found in the multifocal group only at the lowest spatial frequency without halogen glare. The monofocal and multifocal groups had no statistically significant differences in contrast sensitivity with moderate and strong glare. These results suggest no difference in glare disability induced by halogen light similar to oncoming vehicle headlights for patients implanted with monofocal and multifocal IOLs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11004093      PMCID: PMC1723267          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.84.10.1109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  11 in total

1.  Optical performance of multifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  J T Holladay; H Van Dijk; A Lang; V Portney; T R Willis; R Sun; H C Oksman
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Contrast sensitivity in pseudophakia and aphakia.

Authors:  J Weatherill; M Yap
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Scaling of visual acuity measurements.

Authors:  G Westheimer
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1979-02

4.  [The Array multifocal lens--functional principle and clinical results].

Authors:  D Eisenmann; K W Jacobi
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 0.700

5.  [Modulation transfer function and contrast sensitivity of refractive multi-zone multi-focal lenses].

Authors:  D Eisenmann; V Hessemer; B Manzke; W Stork; K W Jacobi
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  [Effect of corneal astigmatism on contrast sensitivity in mono- and multifocal pseudophakia--a theoretical study of the physical eye].

Authors:  D Eisenmann; R Wagner; B Dick; K W Jacobi
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  1996 Aug-Sep       Impact factor: 0.700

7.  Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  H B Dick; F Krummenauer; O Schwenn; R Krist; N Pfeiffer
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  Effect of age and astigmatism on the AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  P C Jacobi; W Konen
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.351

9.  [Glare sensitivity of phakic and pseudophakic eyes].

Authors:  D Eisenmann; F K Jacobi; B Dick; K W Jacobi; W Pabst
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 0.700

10.  Test-retest reliability of the CSV-1000 contrast test and its relationship to glaucoma therapy.

Authors:  G N Pomerance; D W Evans
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Why HID headlights bother older drivers.

Authors:  M A Mainster; G T Timberlake
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  Effect of yellow filter on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity under glare condition among different age groups.

Authors:  Monireh Mahjoob; Samira Heydarian; Somayyeh Koochi
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 2.031

3.  Quality of vision, patient satisfaction and long-term visual function after bilateral implantation of a low addition multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Emilio Pedrotti; Rodolfo Mastropasqua; Jacopo Bonetto; Christian Demasi; Francesco Aiello; Carlo Nucci; Cesare Mariotti; Giorgio Marchini
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 2.031

4.  Subjective and objective performance of the Lenstec KH-3500 "accommodative" intraocular lens.

Authors:  J S Wolffsohn; S A Naroo; N K Motwani; S Shah; O A Hunt; S Mantry; M Sira; I A Cunliffe; M T Benson
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-03-10       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  Refractive outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in fellow eyes for keratoconus.

Authors:  Emilio Pedrotti; Mattia Passilongo; Adriano Fasolo; Sara Ficial; Stefano Ferrari; Giorgio Marchini
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 2.031

6.  Objective evaluation of through-focus optical performance of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses using an optical bench system.

Authors:  Myoung Joon Kim; Len Zheleznyak; Scott Macrae; Hungwon Tchah; Geunyoung Yoon
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.351

7.  [Functional results with two multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOL). Array SA40 versus Acri.Twin].

Authors:  U Mester; P Dillinger; N Anterist; H Kaymak
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.059

8.  Visual function and higher order aberration after implantation of aspheric and spherical multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian-Ping Liu; Fan Zhang; Jiang-Yue Zhao; Li-Wei Ma; Jin-Song Zhang
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

9.  Postoperative visual performance with a bifocal and trifocal diffractive intraocular lens during a 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  Peter Mojzis; Lucia Kukuckova; Katarina Majerova; Peter Ziak; David P Piñero
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

10.  [Subjective and objective outcome following implantation of the apodized diffractive AcrySof ReSTOR].

Authors:  K Petermeier; P Szurman
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.