Literature DB >> 17429652

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

K Petermeier1, P Szurman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our purpose in this study was to assess the postoperative subjective and objective results after implantation of the Acrysof ReSTOR lens and to evaluate the advantages and limitations of the apodized diffractive optic design of this new multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL).
METHODS: Phakoemulsification and implantation of an Acrysof ReSTOR was performed in 55 eyes of 32 patients. All patients were examined after a mean period of 7.9+/-1.9 months. The accuracy of lens calculation was evaluated for the Haigis, Holladay I, and SRK-T formulas. Uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for distance and for intermediate and near vision were assessed, as was stereoacuity. In addition, contrast sensitivity was tested under photopic and mesopic conditions, with and without glare. The patients were asked about dysphotic phenomena such as halos, glare or flare, and night vision using a standardized evaluation. The degree to which patients were able to manage without spectacles after the surgery was also documented.
RESULTS: The median monocular uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) for distance was 20/25 (LogMAR 0.05) while the binocular UCVA was 20/20 (LogMAR 0). The monocular uncorrected acuity for near vision was 20/25 (LogMAR 0.1), the binocular near visual acuitiy was 20/20 (LogMAR 0), while the intermediate monocular visual acuity was 20/50 (LogMAR 0.4) and the binocular, 20/32 (LogMAR 0.2). Contrast sensitivity was within the normal range. Dysphotic phenomena were noted by 66% of patients but were so slight as not to cause any problem at all in 59%. For close work and distance vision 84% of all patients needed no correcting glasses, while 78% did not need to use glasses for intermediate vision.
CONCLUSION: The Acrysof ReSTOR provides excellent uncorrected visual acuity for distance and near vision and the level of patient satisfaction achieved with it is good.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17429652     DOI: 10.1007/s00347-007-1511-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmologe        ISSN: 0941-293X            Impact factor:   1.059


  26 in total

1.  Secondary procedures after presbyopic lens exchange.

Authors:  Antonio Leccisotti
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Near vision restoration with refractive lens exchange and pseudoaccommodating and multifocal refractive and diffractive intraocular lenses: comparative clinical study.

Authors:  Jorge L Alió; Marco Tavolato; Fernando De la Hoz; Pascual Claramonte; José-Luis Rodríguez-Prats; Ahmed Galal
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 3.  Multifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Stephen S Lane; Mike Morris; Lee Nordan; Mark Packer; Nicholas Tarantino; R Bruce Wallace
Journal:  Ophthalmol Clin North Am       Date:  2006-03

4.  Impact of a modified optic design on visual function: clinical comparative study.

Authors:  Ulrich Mester; Patrick Dillinger; Nicola Anterist
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 5.  [Presbyopia correction using intraocular lenses].

Authors:  M P Holzer; T M Rabsilber; G U Auffarth
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  [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

Review 7.  [Multifocal intraocular lenses. A review].

Authors:  G U Auffarth; H B Dick
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.059

8.  A prospective comparative study of the AMO ARRAY zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  R F Steinert; B L Aker; D J Trentacost; P J Smith; N Tarantino
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 12.079

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.  Characterization of visual phenomena with the Array multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  John D Hunkeler; Tom M Coffman; Jerry Paugh; Alan Lang; Pamela Smith; Nicholas Tarantino
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.351

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  [Apodized diffractive optic. New concept in multifocal lens technology].

Authors:  T Kohnen; V Derhartunian
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Initial results of trifocal diffractive IOL implantation.

Authors:  Anna Voskresenskaya; Nadezhda Pozdeyeva; Nicolay Pashtaev; Yevgeniy Batkov; Valeriy Treushnicov; Valentin Cherednik
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-06-05       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  [Functional results with two multifocal intraocular lenses with different near addition].

Authors:  U Mester; B Junker; H Kaymak
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.059

4.  Patient acceptability of the Tecnis multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Priyanka Sood; Maria A Woodward
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-03-24
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.