Literature DB >> 16505063

Objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics with the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens.

James Stuart Wolffsohn1, Olivia Anne Hunt, Shehzad Naroo, Bernard Gilmartin, Sunil Shah, Ian Andrew Cunliffe, Mark Timothy Benson, Sanjay Mantry.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics of eyes implanted with the one-compartment-unit (1CU; HumanOptics AG, Erlangen, Germany) accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) with that measured subjectively.
METHODS: Twenty eyes with a 1CU accommodative IOL implanted were refracted and distance and near acuity measured with a logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) chart. The objective accommodative stimulus-response curve for static targets between 0.17 and 4.00 D accommodative demand was measured with the SRW-5000 (Shin-Nippon Commerce Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and PowerRefractor (PlusOptiX, Nürnberg, Germany) autorefractors. Continuous objective recording of dynamic accommodation was measured with the SRW-5000, with the subject viewing a target moving from 0 to 2.50 D at 0.3 Hz through a Badal lens system. Wavefront aberrometry measures (Zywave; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) were made through undilated pupils. Subjective amplitude of accommodation was measured with the RAF (Royal Air Force accommodation and vergence measurement) rule.
RESULTS: Four months after implantation best-corrected acuity was -0.01 +/- 0.16 logMAR at distance and 0.60 +/- 0.09 logMAR at near. Objectively, the static amplitude of accommodation was 0.72 +/- 0.38 D. The average dynamic amplitude of accommodation was 0.71 +/- 0.47 D, with a lag behind the target of 0.50 +/- 0.48 seconds. Aberrometry showed a decrease in power of the lens-eye combination from the center to the periphery in all subjects (on average, -0.38 +/- 0.28 D/mm). Subjective amplitude of accommodation was 2.24 +/- 0.42 D. Two years after 1CU implantation, refractive error and distance visual acuity remained relatively stable, but near visual acuity, and the subjective and objective amplitudes of accommodation decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: The objective accommodating effects of the 1CU lens appear to be limited, although patients are able to track a moving target. Subjective and objective accommodation was reduced at the 2-year follow-up. The greater subjective amplitude of accommodation is likely to result from the eye's depth of focus of and the aspheric nature of the IOL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16505063     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0939

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  12 in total

1.  Paraxial analysis of the depth of field of a pseudophakic eye with accommodating intraocular lens.

Authors:  Jit B Ale; Fabrice Manns; Arthur Ho
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.973

Review 2.  Restoration of accommodation: surgical options for correction of presbyopia.

Authors:  Adrian Glasser
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.742

3.  Objective accommodation measurements in prepresbyopic eyes using an autorefractor and an aberrometer.

Authors:  Dorothy M Win-Hall; Adrian Glasser
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 4.  Clinical application of accommodating intraocular lens.

Authors:  You-Ling Liang; Song-Bai Jia
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 1.779

5.  [Evaluation of the valence objective and subjective methods for measuring pseudophakic accommodation].

Authors:  D Uthoff; W Haigis; D Hepper; M Pölzl; D Holland
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  Static and dynamic accommodation measured using the WAM-5500 Autorefractor.

Authors:  Dorothy M Win-Hall; Jamie Houser; Adrian Glasser
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.973

7.  Objective accommodation measurements in pseudophakic subjects using an autorefractor and an aberrometer.

Authors:  Dorothy M Win-Hall; Adrian Glasser
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.351

8.  Real and pseudoaccommodation in accommodative lenses.

Authors:  Ioannis G Pallikaris; Georgios A Kontadakis; Dimitra M Portaliou
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-09-18       Impact factor: 1.909

9.  Factors Influencing Pseudo-Accommodation-The Difference between Subjectively Reported Range of Clear Focus and Objectively Measured Accommodation Range.

Authors:  Sandeep K Dhallu; Amy L Sheppard; Tom Drew; Toshifumi Mihashi; Juan F Zapata-Díaz; Hema Radhakrishnan; D Robert Iskander; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-28

10.  The Predictability of Preoperative Pilocarpine-Induced Lens Shift on the Outcomes of Accommodating Intraocular Lenses Implanted in Senile Cataract Patients.

Authors:  Jin Li; Qi Chen; Zhibo Lin; Lin Leng; Fang Huang; Ding Chen
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 1.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.