OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical results of implantation of the new 1CU accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) in cataract patients and to compare results with those of conventional IOLs. DESIGN: Nonrandomized comparative trial. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty eyes of 20 patients (mean age = 65.8+/-13.3 years) in the 1CU group and 20 eyes of 20 patients (mean age = 67.4+/-11.6 years) in the control group. METHODS: All patients underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. The 1CU accommodative lens was used in 20 eyes, and conventional IOLs (polymethyl methacrylate, hydrophilic or hydrophobic acrylate) were used in the control group. Patients were observed prospectively, and 6-month data were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accommodative ranges determined by 3 different methods (near point, defocusing, and retinoscopy). Secondary outcome measures were (1) increase of anterior chamber depth after topical application of 1% cyclopentolate eyedrops and (2) distance-corrected near visual acuity with Birkhäuser reading charts at 35 cm. RESULTS: We observed a higher accommodative range with all 3 methods (mean = 1.83+/-0.49 vs. 1.16+/-0.27 diopters [D] [near point], 1.85+/-0.43 vs. 0.64+/-0.21 D [defocusing], and 0.98+/-0.55 vs. 0.17+/-0.22 D [retinoscopy]), a larger increase of anterior chamber depth after cyclopentolate eyedrops (mean = 0.42+/-0.18 vs. 0.11+/-0.06 mm), and better distance-corrected near visual acuity (median = 0.4 vs. 0.2) in the 1CU group relative to the control group. All differences between the 2 groups were statistically highly significant (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, the 1CU accommodative IOL showed increased accommodative range and better near visual acuity than a control group with conventional IOLs. Further research is necessary to confirm these results in masked, randomized, prospective studies and to confirm further the accommodative power of this group of new IOLs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical results of implantation of the new 1CU accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) in cataractpatients and to compare results with those of conventional IOLs. DESIGN: Nonrandomized comparative trial. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty eyes of 20 patients (mean age = 65.8+/-13.3 years) in the 1CU group and 20 eyes of 20 patients (mean age = 67.4+/-11.6 years) in the control group. METHODS: All patients underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. The 1CU accommodative lens was used in 20 eyes, and conventional IOLs (polymethyl methacrylate, hydrophilic or hydrophobic acrylate) were used in the control group. Patients were observed prospectively, and 6-month data were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accommodative ranges determined by 3 different methods (near point, defocusing, and retinoscopy). Secondary outcome measures were (1) increase of anterior chamber depth after topical application of 1% cyclopentolate eyedrops and (2) distance-corrected near visual acuity with Birkhäuser reading charts at 35 cm. RESULTS: We observed a higher accommodative range with all 3 methods (mean = 1.83+/-0.49 vs. 1.16+/-0.27 diopters [D] [near point], 1.85+/-0.43 vs. 0.64+/-0.21 D [defocusing], and 0.98+/-0.55 vs. 0.17+/-0.22 D [retinoscopy]), a larger increase of anterior chamber depth after cyclopentolate eyedrops (mean = 0.42+/-0.18 vs. 0.11+/-0.06 mm), and better distance-corrected near visual acuity (median = 0.4 vs. 0.2) in the 1CU group relative to the control group. All differences between the 2 groups were statistically highly significant (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, the 1CU accommodative IOL showed increased accommodative range and better near visual acuity than a control group with conventional IOLs. Further research is necessary to confirm these results in masked, randomized, prospective studies and to confirm further the accommodative power of this group of new IOLs.