Postoperative optical aberrations in eyes implanted with AcrySof spherical and aspheric intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare optical and visual quality of eyes implanted with spherical and aspheric intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Twenty eyes of 17 patients were implanted with the AcrySof Natural IQ aspheric IOL (SN60WF) and 20 eyes of 15 patients were implanted with the AcrySof Natural spherical IOL (SN60AT). Photopic monocular distance best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was recorded at 6 months postoperatively. Corneal aberrations were measured with the CSO Eyetop topographer, and ocular aberrations were measured with a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer for a 6-mm pupil. Ocular spherical aberration was computed for different pupil diameters (3, 4, 5, and 6 mm). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the BSCVA of the AcrySof IQ IOL (0.023 +/- 0.004 logMAR) and AcrySof Natural IOL (0.031 +/- 0.003 logMAR) (P = .15). The corneal higher order aberrations showed no statistically significant differences between groups (P > .1). However, spherical aberration and higher order ocular aberrations in the AcrySof IQ eyes were lower than eyes implanted with the AcrySof Natural IOL (P < .01). A statistically significant increase in the spherical aberration coefficient with pupil diameter was found only for the spherical IOL group (P = .0023). Statistically significant differences in the spherical aberration coefficient were found between groups at all pupil diameters (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in ocular spherical aberration was noted after AcrySof IQ IOL implantation at all pupil diameters compared to the spherical IOL, although photopic BSCVA between groups remained similar.     

Comparison of higher order aberrations with spherical and aspheric IOLs compared to normal phakic eyes

PURPOSE: To compare higher order aberrations (HOA) in AcrySof SN60AT and Acrysof IQ SN60WF intraocular lenses (IOLs) and natural crystalline lenses in an age-matched population. METHODS: Sixty-nine eyes of 55 patients were examined. Group I included AcrySof spheric lenses, group II AcrySof aspheric lenses, and group III included patients with the natural crystalline lens. The HOA data were obtained with a LADARWave aberrometer (Alcon Inc.). Analysis was based on the RMS of coma, spherical aberrations (SA), and HOA. Statistical comparisons were performed with Kruskal Wallis variance analysis. RESULTS: In the case of coma, there were statistically significant differences between spheric and aspheric AcrySof (p<0.005) and between spheric AcrySof and natural crystalline lenses (p<0.005). The differences between aspheric AcrySof and natural crystalline lens group were not significant (p>0.05). SA were significantly different between spheric and aspheric AcrySof group, and spheric AcrySof and natural crystalline lens group (p<0.005), as well as between aspheric AcrySof and natural crystalline lens group (p<0.05). In case of HOAno significant differences were observed between aspheric AcrySof and natural crystalline lens group (p>0.05), but differences between groups AcrySof spheric and aspheric, and spheric AcrySof and natural crystalline lens, showed high significance (p<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The AcrySof Natural IQ aspheric model SN60WF IOL did not change the optical quality of vision compared to a healthy population of 60-80 years of age. The AcrySof Natural model SN60AT spherical IOL resulted in higher HOAs relative to both the natural crystalline lens population and eyes after aspheric AcrySof IQ model SN60WF IOL implantation.     

黄色非球面人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的 观察老年性白内障患者植入黄色非球面人工晶状体AcrySof IQ术后对比敏感度和眩光敏感度.方法 前瞻性临床对照研究.56例(56只眼)老年性白内障患者,随机分为三组,分别植入非球面人工晶状体AerySof IQ(SN60wF)及球面人工晶状体Acrysof Natural(SN60AT)、Acrysof (SA60AT).术后2月行最佳矫正视力、像差及对比敏感度检查.结果 三组患者术后最佳矫正视力≥20/30.IQ组与球面晶状体组比较,球差均显著性减少(P<0.05),高阶像差及彗差无统计学意义(P0.05).在非眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度(10g值)显著高于球面晶状体组(P<0.05),中频2.5deg时IQ组的对比敏感度显著高于SA60AT组(P<0.05).在眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度也显著高于球面晶状体组(SN60AT组:P<0.01,SA60AT组:6.3degrees P<0.01,4.0degrees P<0.05).结论 非球面人工晶状体可以减少球面像差,提高低频尤其是眩光状态下的对比敏感度从而获得更好的视觉质量.滤蓝光晶状体与普通晶状体比较对比敏感度差异无统计学意义,不能明显改善视功能.     

黄色非球面人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的 观察老年性白内障患者植入黄色非球面人工晶状体AcrySof IQ术后对比敏感度和眩光敏感度.方法 前瞻性临床对照研究.56例(56只眼)老年性白内障患者,随机分为三组,分别植入非球面人工晶状体AerySof IQ(SN60wF)及球面人工晶状体Acrysof Natural(SN60AT)、Acrysof (SA60AT).术后2月行最佳矫正视力、像差及对比敏感度检查.结果 三组患者术后最佳矫正视力≥20/30.IQ组与球面晶状体组比较,球差均显著性减少(P<0.05),高阶像差及彗差无统计学意义(P0.05).在非眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度(10g值)显著高于球面晶状体组(P<0.05),中频2.5deg时IQ组的对比敏感度显著高于SA60AT组(P<0.05).在眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度也显著高于球面晶状体组(SN60AT组:P<0.01,SA60AT组:6.3degrees P<0.01,4.0degrees P<0.05).结论 非球面人工晶状体可以减少球面像差,提高低频尤其是眩光状态下的对比敏感度从而获得更好的视觉质量.滤蓝光晶状体与普通晶状体比较对比敏感度差异无统计学意义,不能明显改善视功能.     

黄色非球面人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的 观察老年性白内障患者植入黄色非球面人工晶状体AcrySof IQ术后对比敏感度和眩光敏感度.方法 前瞻性临床对照研究.56例(56只眼)老年性白内障患者,随机分为三组,分别植入非球面人工晶状体AerySof IQ(SN60wF)及球面人工晶状体Acrysof Natural(SN60AT)、Acrysof (SA60AT).术后2月行最佳矫正视力、像差及对比敏感度检查.结果 三组患者术后最佳矫正视力≥20/30.IQ组与球面晶状体组比较,球差均显著性减少(P<0.05),高阶像差及彗差无统计学意义(P0.05).在非眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度(10g值)显著高于球面晶状体组(P<0.05),中频2.5deg时IQ组的对比敏感度显著高于SA60AT组(P<0.05).在眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度也显著高于球面晶状体组(SN60AT组:P<0.01,SA60AT组:6.3degrees P<0.01,4.0degrees P<0.05).结论 非球面人工晶状体可以减少球面像差,提高低频尤其是眩光状态下的对比敏感度从而获得更好的视觉质量.滤蓝光晶状体与普通晶状体比较对比敏感度差异无统计学意义,不能明显改善视功能.     

黄色非球面人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的 观察老年性白内障患者植入黄色非球面人工晶状体AcrySof IQ术后对比敏感度和眩光敏感度.方法 前瞻性临床对照研究.56例(56只眼)老年性白内障患者,随机分为三组,分别植入非球面人工晶状体AerySof IQ(SN60wF)及球面人工晶状体Acrysof Natural(SN60AT)、Acrysof (SA60AT).术后2月行最佳矫正视力、像差及对比敏感度检查.结果 三组患者术后最佳矫正视力≥20/30.IQ组与球面晶状体组比较,球差均显著性减少(P<0.05),高阶像差及彗差无统计学意义(P0.05).在非眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度(10g值)显著高于球面晶状体组(P<0.05),中频2.5deg时IQ组的对比敏感度显著高于SA60AT组(P<0.05).在眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度也显著高于球面晶状体组(SN60AT组:P<0.01,SA60AT组:6.3degrees P<0.01,4.0degrees P<0.05).结论 非球面人工晶状体可以减少球面像差,提高低频尤其是眩光状态下的对比敏感度从而获得更好的视觉质量.滤蓝光晶状体与普通晶状体比较对比敏感度差异无统计学意义,不能明显改善视功能.     

黄色非球面人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的 观察老年性白内障患者植入黄色非球面人工晶状体AcrySof IQ术后对比敏感度和眩光敏感度.方法 前瞻性临床对照研究.56例(56只眼)老年性白内障患者,随机分为三组,分别植入非球面人工晶状体AerySof IQ(SN60wF)及球面人工晶状体Acrysof Natural(SN60AT)、Acrysof (SA60AT).术后2月行最佳矫正视力、像差及对比敏感度检查.结果 三组患者术后最佳矫正视力≥20/30.IQ组与球面晶状体组比较,球差均显著性减少(P<0.05),高阶像差及彗差无统计学意义(P0.05).在非眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度(10g值)显著高于球面晶状体组(P<0.05),中频2.5deg时IQ组的对比敏感度显著高于SA60AT组(P<0.05).在眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度也显著高于球面晶状体组(SN60AT组:P<0.01,SA60AT组:6.3degrees P<0.01,4.0degrees P<0.05).结论 非球面人工晶状体可以减少球面像差,提高低频尤其是眩光状态下的对比敏感度从而获得更好的视觉质量.滤蓝光晶状体与普通晶状体比较对比敏感度差异无统计学意义,不能明显改善视功能.     

黄色非球面人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的 观察老年性白内障患者植入黄色非球面人工晶状体AcrySof IQ术后对比敏感度和眩光敏感度.方法 前瞻性临床对照研究.56例(56只眼)老年性白内障患者,随机分为三组,分别植入非球面人工晶状体AerySof IQ(SN60wF)及球面人工晶状体Acrysof Natural(SN60AT)、Acrysof (SA60AT).术后2月行最佳矫正视力、像差及对比敏感度检查.结果 三组患者术后最佳矫正视力≥20/30.IQ组与球面晶状体组比较,球差均显著性减少(P<0.05),高阶像差及彗差无统计学意义(P0.05).在非眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度(10g值)显著高于球面晶状体组(P<0.05),中频2.5deg时IQ组的对比敏感度显著高于SA60AT组(P<0.05).在眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度也显著高于球面晶状体组(SN60AT组:P<0.01,SA60AT组:6.3degrees P<0.01,4.0degrees P<0.05).结论 非球面人工晶状体可以减少球面像差,提高低频尤其是眩光状态下的对比敏感度从而获得更好的视觉质量.滤蓝光晶状体与普通晶状体比较对比敏感度差异无统计学意义,不能明显改善视功能.     

黄色非球面人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的 观察老年性白内障患者植入黄色非球面人工晶状体AcrySof IQ术后对比敏感度和眩光敏感度.方法 前瞻性临床对照研究.56例(56只眼)老年性白内障患者,随机分为三组,分别植入非球面人工晶状体AerySof IQ(SN60wF)及球面人工晶状体Acrysof Natural(SN60AT)、Acrysof (SA60AT).术后2月行最佳矫正视力、像差及对比敏感度检查.结果 三组患者术后最佳矫正视力≥20/30.IQ组与球面晶状体组比较,球差均显著性减少(P<0.05),高阶像差及彗差无统计学意义(P0.05).在非眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度(10g值)显著高于球面晶状体组(P<0.05),中频2.5deg时IQ组的对比敏感度显著高于SA60AT组(P<0.05).在眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度也显著高于球面晶状体组(SN60AT组:P<0.01,SA60AT组:6.3degrees P<0.01,4.0degrees P<0.05).结论 非球面人工晶状体可以减少球面像差,提高低频尤其是眩光状态下的对比敏感度从而获得更好的视觉质量.滤蓝光晶状体与普通晶状体比较对比敏感度差异无统计学意义,不能明显改善视功能.     

黄色非球面人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的 观察老年性白内障患者植入黄色非球面人工晶状体AcrySof IQ术后对比敏感度和眩光敏感度.方法 前瞻性临床对照研究.56例(56只眼)老年性白内障患者,随机分为三组,分别植入非球面人工晶状体AerySof IQ(SN60wF)及球面人工晶状体Acrysof Natural(SN60AT)、Acrysof (SA60AT).术后2月行最佳矫正视力、像差及对比敏感度检查.结果 三组患者术后最佳矫正视力≥20/30.IQ组与球面晶状体组比较,球差均显著性减少(P<0.05),高阶像差及彗差无统计学意义(P0.05).在非眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度(10g值)显著高于球面晶状体组(P<0.05),中频2.5deg时IQ组的对比敏感度显著高于SA60AT组(P<0.05).在眩光状态下,低频时IQ组的对比敏感度也显著高于球面晶状体组(SN60AT组:P<0.01,SA60AT组:6.3degrees P<0.01,4.0degrees P<0.05).结论 非球面人工晶状体可以减少球面像差,提高低频尤其是眩光状态下的对比敏感度从而获得更好的视觉质量.滤蓝光晶状体与普通晶状体比较对比敏感度差异无统计学意义,不能明显改善视功能.