G Nemeth1, A Tsorbatzoglou, P Vamosi, Z Sohajda, A Berta. 1. 1Department of Ophthalmology, Medical Health and Science Center, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. nemeth222@yahoo.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accommodative amplitudes with three different methods in pseudophakic eyes with different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Fifty-one pseudophakic eyes of 44 patients (age: 72.02+/-8.53 years) were studied. One of two different types of IOL were implanted (N=30, three-piece Alcon Acrysof MA60AC and N=21, one-piece Alcon Acrysof SA60AT) in-the-bag after standard phacoemulsification. The time of the examinations was 13.85+/-7.35 months postoperatively. We measured the amplitude of accommodation with three different methods: (1) subjective minus-lenses-to-blur method; (2) a new optical device (ACMaster, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) using partial coherence interference (PCI) technique under physiological stimulus; and (3) objective anterior chamber depth measuring with a standard A-scan ultrasonic device (Ultrascan Imaging System, Alcon Laboratories, Forth Worth, TX, USA) before and after pharmacological relaxation of ciliary muscle. RESULTS: We measured -0.83+/-0.63 D amplitude of accommodation with subjective minus-lenses-to-blur method. The IOL position did not change significantly during physiological accommodation effort measured with PCI method (-0.026+/-0.134 mm). The change in the IOLs position between near fixating and after ciliary muscle relaxation was -0.18+/-0.28 mm measured with ultrasound. There were no significant differences between values of one-piece and three-piece IOL groups. CONCLUSION: The amplitude of accommodation measured by subjective and objective methods are different and are not comparable with each other. We did not observe any difference between values of examined two types of IOLs.
PURPOSE: To compare the accommodative amplitudes with three different methods in pseudophakic eyes with different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Fifty-one pseudophakic eyes of 44 patients (age: 72.02+/-8.53 years) were studied. One of two different types of IOL were implanted (N=30, three-piece Alcon Acrysof MA60AC and N=21, one-piece Alcon Acrysof SA60AT) in-the-bag after standard phacoemulsification. The time of the examinations was 13.85+/-7.35 months postoperatively. We measured the amplitude of accommodation with three different methods: (1) subjective minus-lenses-to-blur method; (2) a new optical device (ACMaster, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) using partial coherence interference (PCI) technique under physiological stimulus; and (3) objective anterior chamber depth measuring with a standard A-scan ultrasonic device (Ultrascan Imaging System, Alcon Laboratories, Forth Worth, TX, USA) before and after pharmacological relaxation of ciliary muscle. RESULTS: We measured -0.83+/-0.63 D amplitude of accommodation with subjective minus-lenses-to-blur method. The IOL position did not change significantly during physiological accommodation effort measured with PCI method (-0.026+/-0.134 mm). The change in the IOLs position between near fixating and after ciliary muscle relaxation was -0.18+/-0.28 mm measured with ultrasound. There were no significant differences between values of one-piece and three-piece IOL groups. CONCLUSION: The amplitude of accommodation measured by subjective and objective methods are different and are not comparable with each other. We did not observe any difference between values of examined two types of IOLs.