衍射型多焦点人工晶状体眼拟调节力的初步报告

目的 评价白内障超声乳化摘除联合衍射型多焦点人工晶状体植入术后患者的视力及拟调节力。方法 将40例（46眼）年龄相关性白内障患者随机分为2组，每组各20例（23眼），分别行白内障超声乳化摘除并植入ReSTOR SA60D3衍射型多焦点人工晶状体（多焦组）和Natural SN60AT单焦点人工晶状体（单焦组），观察术后裸眼远、近视力，最佳矫正远、近视力．最佳视远矫正时近视力以及视近拟调节力。结果 两组患者术后裸眼远视力，最佳矫正远视力和最佳矫正近视力差异均无显著性（P〉0．05）；术后第3个月裸眼远视力≥0．5者多焦组和单焦组均达95．65％。多焦组术后裸眼近视力和最佳视远矫正时近视力明显优于单焦组（P〈0．05）；术后第3个月裸眼近视力≥0．5者，多焦组为69．57％，单焦组为4．35％；而最佳视远矫正时近视力≥0．5，多焦组为69．57％，单焦组为13．04％。术后第3个月视近拟调节力多焦组为（-3．54±1．05）D，单焦组为（-1．65±0．68）D，差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。结论 ReSTOR衍射型多焦点人工晶状体能提供良好的远、近视力。拟调节幅度较单焦点人工晶状体大．能有效地提高白内障患者术后的视觉质量．     

Tetraflex 可调节人工晶状体的临床应用

目的 评估眼内植入Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体增强远近视力的安全性、有效性.方法 取29例 (30只眼) 老年性白内障患者行超声乳化手术并植入 Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体;另外 26 例 (30只眼) 植入 IQ折叠人工晶状体.观察患者术后的裸眼远近视力、矫正远近视力、最佳矫正远视力下的近视力、调节幅度、手术中及术后并发症.结果 术后6个月,两组的裸眼远视力、矫正远、近视力差异无统计学意义(t =1.667、1.458、1.207,P ＞0.05),Tetraflex组的裸眼近视力和最佳矫正远视力下的近视力好于IQ组(t =2.407,8.667,P ＜ 0.01) .视标推进法测得调节幅度 Tetraflex组 (2.79 ±0.33) D 大于IQ 组(1.42 ±0.25) D (t =15.218,P ＜ 0.001) .结论 Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体是安全有效的,能够在改善患者远视力的同时增强近视力使白内障患者术后获得一定的调节力.     

Acrysoft ReStOr多焦点人工晶状体的临床应用观察

目的 探讨新型Acrysoft ReStOr多焦点人工晶状体的临床应用价值.方法 36例46只眼老年性白内障患者按自愿原则分为两组,多焦组19例(23只眼)单焦组17例(23只眼)均行标准白内障超声乳化吸除术,按分组分别植入ReStOrSA60D3衍射型多焦点人工晶状体和NaturalSN60AT单焦点人工晶状体,观察并记录术后不同时期术眼的裸眼远、近视力、最佳矫正远、近视力、最佳矫正远视力下近视力、拟调节力、对比敏感度及视觉质量等结果.结果 各期两组患者间裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力及最佳矫正近视力均差异无统计学意义(P≥0.05);多焦组裸眼近视力、最佳矫正远视力下近视力和拟调节力显著优于单焦组(P＜0.05),多焦组近、中距离的视觉质量满意度也较单焦组有明显提高(P＜0.05).结论 Acrysoft ReStOr多焦点人工晶状体可为白内障术后患者提供良好的远,中,近视力,提高生活质量值得临床推广应用.     

七叶洋地黄双苷滴眼液对不同年龄段人工晶状体眼伪调节力的影响

目的研究七叶洋地黄双苷滴眼液对不同年龄段人工晶状体眼伪调节力的影响。方法选取2010年9月至2011年8月在我院行白内障超声乳化吸出联合单焦点人工晶状体植入术患者56例(60眼),随机分为2组(试验组30例、对照组26例),每组各30眼。试验组术后应用七叶洋地黄双苷滴眼液和双氯芬酸钠滴眼液滴眼,每天3～4次;对照组术后仅使用双氯芬酸钠滴眼液滴眼,每天3～4次。分别在术前、术后1周、4周检查患者的裸眼远视力、近视力、最佳矫正远视力下的近视力、矫正状态下的近视力,应用负镜片法测量人工晶状体眼的调节幅度,并对各项指标对比分析。结果试验组各年龄段人工晶状体眼术后4周的最佳矫正远视力为0.83±0.19,对照组最佳矫正远视力为0.81±0.16,2组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);试验组最佳矫正远视力下的近视力为0.31±0.05,对照组的最佳矫正远视力下的近视力为0.20±0.05,2组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后4周,试验组各年龄段的人工晶状体眼的伪调节力均高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均为P<0.05),试验组各年龄段人工晶状体眼的伪调节力的影响与年龄增长呈负相关(r=-0.312)。结论七叶洋地黄双苷滴眼液可以增加人工晶状体眼的有效伪调节力,七叶洋地黄双苷滴眼液对人工晶状体眼的伪调节力的影响与年龄呈负相关关系。     

Tetraflex可调节IOL植入术后远期视觉质量的临床研究

目的：探讨可调节人工晶状体植入术后远期视力、表观调节力及视觉症状等情况。方法：病例对照研究。选择43例49眼拟行白内障超声乳化摘除联合囊袋内人工晶状体植入术的白内障患者,其中21例25眼植入Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体（Tetraflex组）,22例24眼植入Acrysof SA60AT单焦点人工晶状体（SA60AT组）,对比研究两组患者术后3,6,24mo裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力、裸眼近视力、最佳矫正远视力下近视力、等效球镜度、表观调节力、脱镜率以及患者满意度情况。采用SPSS 13.0统计软件包进行统计学处理。结果：术后随访期间,两组患者的裸眼远视力和最佳矫正远视力差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Tetraflex组患者的裸眼近视力和最佳矫正远视力下近视力与单焦组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后应用负镜片法测得的表观调节力：术后3mo,Tetraflex组为3.56±1.20D,SA60AT组为-0.25±0.20D;术后6mo, Tetraflex组为3.08±1.30D, SA60AT组为-0.20±0.18D;术后24mo, Tetraflex组为285±1.22D, SA60AT组为-0.15±0.16D,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。近距离阅读时戴老视镜情况和对疗效的满意度情况,Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体组均明显优于单焦组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论：与传统的单焦点人工晶状体相比,Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体满足了患者视远、视近的要求,并可提供较好的表观调节力,虽远期有下降趋势,但逐渐平稳。     

可调节人工晶状体预留度数设计的临床观察

目的 观察可调节人工晶状体预留度数植入术后的视觉质量及调节力的变化.方法 将30例(60只眼)植入可调节人工晶状体,其中将15例(30只眼)植入度数设计(SRKT公式)为主视眼植入理论值过矫0.5D度数,非主视眼植入理论值过矫1.0D度数作为研究组;随机选取15例(30只眼)植入度数设计为主视眼和非主视眼均植入SRKT公式理论值度数作为对照组.手术后随访3个月以上,观察远视力、近视力,最佳矫正远、近视力;调节力的测定(分别用主观法和客观法);双眼合视的远、近视力.结果 研究组术后屈光度主视眼为(0.512±0.15)D,非主视眼为(1.13±0.12)D.研究组与对照组主视眼裸眼远视力及最佳矫正远视力分别为0.89±0.11、0.91±0.12和0.97±0.23、0.99±0.14,差异均无统计学意义.33cm近视力及最佳矫正近视力主视眼分别为0.63±0.16、0.48±0.23和0.97±0.25、0.86±0.14,差异有统计学意义;非主视眼最佳矫正近视力为0.99±0.15和0.89±0.14,差异有统计学意义.两组调节幅度主观法分别为(3.35±0.71)D和(3.27±1.32)D,差异无统计学意义;客观法主视眼分别为(0.38±0.12)D和(0.37±0.08)D,差异无统计学意义.双眼合视的远视力分别为0.99±0.11和0.98±0.21,差异无统计学意义;双眼合视的近视力分别为0.91±0.20和0.61±0.17,差异有统计学意义.结论 植入可调节人工晶状体预留度数设计的术后视力主视眼远视力及最佳矫正远视力、双眼合视远视力均无显著差异;33cm近视力和最佳矫正近视力主视眼和非主视眼差异均有统计学意义,双眼合视的近视力差异有统计学意义.可调节人工晶状体在自身调节能力基础上设计预留一定的度数,可明显改善近视力视功能.     

Akreos MI60型人工晶状体眼伪调节的研究

目的:研究1.8mm微切口超声乳化白内障摘除术植入博士伦四点支撑板状襻Akreos MI60人工晶状体眼的伪调节力。方法:回顾性系列病例研究。选取我院单纯年龄相关性白内障行1.8mm微切口超声乳化联合博士伦Akreos MI60人工晶状体植入术的患者19例22眼,在术后6mo进行随访,观察其远视力、最佳矫正远视力,35cm近视力、最佳矫正近视力;离焦法测定人工晶状体眼伪调节力(主观法);在药物(20g/L毛果芸香碱)诱导下用UBM测量前房深度的变化并计算其伪调节力(客观法)。结果:术后6mo,裸眼远视力为0.81±0.11,最佳矫正远视力为0.91±0.09;35cm近视力为0.62±0.10,最佳矫正近视力为0.85±0.11;调节幅度离焦法测定人工晶状体眼伪调节力为2.55±0.24D,前房深度测量法(ACD法)为0.72±0.13D。结论:对于没有明显屈光不正的患者,博士伦AkreosMI60人工晶状体眼术后早期具有一定的伪调节力,主观法测得调节幅度大于客观法。     

可调节人工晶状体植入术后的视觉质量及拟调节力

目的:研究Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体(IOL)植入术后视力、调节幅度、对比敏感度及主观视觉功能的临床应用效果。方法:病例对照研究。选择2010-03/2012-12在我院接受白内障超声乳化摘除联合囊袋内IOL植入术的白内障患者48例72眼,其中23例35眼植入Tetraflex可调节IOL(Tetraflex组),25例37眼植入AcrySof SA60AT单焦点IOL(SA60AT组),对比研究两组患者术后1,3,6mo裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力、裸眼近视力、最佳矫正近视力、最佳矫正远视力下近视力、拟调节力、脱镜率以及患者满意度情况,采用主观移近法测量调节力。采用SPSS13.0统计软件包进行统计学处理。结果:术后随访期间,两组患者的裸眼远视力、最佳矫正近视力和最佳矫正远视力差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Tetraflex组患者的裸眼近视力和最佳矫正远视力下近视力与单焦组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后Tetraflex组拟调节力均高于SA60AT组(P<0.05),于术后6mo Tetraflex组拟调节力有所下降,与1,3mo比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组间对比敏感度差异无统计学意义。脱镜率及和主观视功能满意度,Tetraflex可调节IOL组均明显优于单焦组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:可调节IOL可提供较好的远近视力,增加拟调节力,有效降低患者术后对老视镜的依赖,改善主观视功能。但其拟调节力仍需要进一步的研究。     

Acrysof ReSTOR多焦点人工晶状体植入眼 阅读视力的临床研究

目的 比较植入多焦点人工晶状体(MIOL)与单焦点人工状晶体(SIOL)患者术后视力和阅读视力的差异,评价多焦点人工晶状体植入的有效性及优越性.方法 将74例(120只眼)老年性白内障患者按自愿选择的原则分为两组,每组60眼,行超声乳化白内障吸出术,MIOL组植入Alcon Acrysof ReSTOR多焦点人工晶状体,SIOL组植入Alcon Acrysof Natural单焦点人工状晶体.术后3个月对裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力、裸眼近视力、最佳矫正近视力,最佳矫正远视力下的近视力、63 cm和100 cm中视力、裸眼阅读视力、矫正近视力下阅读视力和矫正远视力下阅读视力等视功能进行检查.结果 两组裸眼远视力、矫正远视力及矫正近视力无明显差异(P＞0.05);裸眼近视力、矫正远视力下近视力、63 cm和100 cm中视力,MIOL组明显优于SIOL组(P＜0.05);植入MIOL眼裸眼阅读视力和矫正远视力下阅读视力均优于植入SIOL眼,裸眼近视力与裸眼阅读视力,矫正远视力下近视力与矫正远视力下阅读视力间分别存在直线相关关系( r1=0.802,r2=0.816);直线回归方程为:Y1=3.995+13.522X1(P＜0.05),Y2=3.696+13.122 X2 (P＜0.05)(X1=裸眼近视力,Y1=裸眼阅读视力;X2=矫正远视力下近视力,Y2=矫正远视力下阅读视力).结论 MIOL植入有效而优越,可以提供与SIOL一样良好的远视力,但近视力、中距离视力及阅读视力更好.良好的近视力是阅读视力的基础.     

三种单焦点人工晶状体植入术后拟调节力比较

目的：比较三种单焦点人工晶状体植入术后人工晶状体眼的拟调节力大小。 方法：白内障患者78例78眼根据自愿的原则,采用非随机方式分成三组,Ⅰ组23例23眼植入AcrySof Natural人工晶状体;Ⅱ组24例24眼植入Canon staa人工晶状体;Ⅲ组31例31眼植入聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)人工晶状体。术后3mo检测最佳矫正远视力及在最佳矫正远视力基础上获得的近视力,以及33cm处在最佳矫正近视力基础上获得的近附加值及拟调节力(PAC)。 结果：三组术后3mo最佳矫正远视力差异无统计学意义(F=0.317,P=0.729);最佳矫正远视力基础上获得的近视力差异有统计学意义(F=3.377,P=0.039);术后3mo,33cm处在最佳矫正近视力基础上获得的近附加值及拟调节力(PAC)比较差异均有统计学意义(F=10094,P=0.000;F=16.806,P=0.000)。 结论：白内障术后植入三种单焦点人工晶状体拟调节力比较,软性推注式折叠晶状体可获得更高的拟调节力及令人满意的近视力。     

白内障超声乳化联合可调节IOL植入术的疗效

目的:对白内障术后植入Tetraflex可调节IOL进行效果和安全性评估。方法:老年性白内障患者60眼,其中30眼行超声乳化手术并植入Tetraflex可调节IOL,对照组30眼植入Akreos Adapt IOL,观察患者术后的裸眼远近视力、调节幅度、术中及术后并发症。结果:术后6mo两组的裸眼远视力、矫正远视力、矫正近视力比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);试验组裸眼近视力(t=2.427,P=0.023)、最佳远视力矫正后近视力(t=8.687,P=0.000)及调节幅度(t=15.158,P=0.000)均优于对照组。结论:Tetraflex可调节IOL与AkreosAdaptIOL相对比有一定调节力,能为患者提供一定视近能力。     

可调节人工晶状体矫治老视的效果

目的探讨可调节人工晶状体矫治老视的可行性。方法均为要求阅读时不配戴凸透镜的老视患者,同时伴有不同程度的晶状体浑浊,共31例（62只眼）。均常规行白内障超声乳化吸出联合囊袋内植入后房型Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体。记录术后裸眼远视力、裸眼近视力、矫正远视力下的近视力、调节幅度、脱镜率、满意度等。术后随访6个月,并与植入Akros单焦点人工晶状体30例（60只眼）进行比较。结果在随访期内,术后3个月两组的裸眼远视力无统计学差异（t=0．366,P〉0．05）,两组的裸眼近视力和矫正远视力下的近视力均有统计学差异（t=10．074,t=9．966,P〈0．05）。术后1周、3个月、6个月的调节幅度,两组之间均有统计学差异（t=28．875,t=31．007,t=30．227,P〈0．05）。术后6个月视近时的脱镜率和对疗效的满意度,两组之间均有统计学差异（Z=-4．901,Z=-5．974,Z=-9．282,P〈0．05）。结论Tetranex可调节人工晶状体具有一定的调节能力,可以为患者提供良好的近视力,同时术后远视力和中距离视力也有所改善。     

两种拟调节型人工晶状体植入术后视功能对比分析

目的 比较超声乳化术后植入可调节人工晶状体和多焦点人工晶状体的视功能.方法 30例白内障患者按自愿原则,采用非随机对照方式分成两组,试验组①10例患者(10只眼)植入Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体.试验组②20例患者(30只眼)植入+3.0D ReSTOR多焦点人工晶状体.术后6个月以ETDRS视力表检测患者最佳矫正远视力及在最佳矫正远视力基础上获得的近视力、中距离视力,综合验光仪检测近点及调节幅度.结果 随访期间所有患者均无明显的术后并发症.试验组①最佳矫正远视力为(-0.21±0.06)LogMAR,近视力为J3/40cm,试验组②为(-0.23±0.09)LogMAR,近视力为J1/35cm,两组比较近视力差异有统计学意义(P=0.035).试验组①术后主观近点为(39±10)cm,试验组②为(35±9)cm,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.80).试验组①术后调节幅度为(1.94±0.13)D,试验组②为(2.08±0.63)D,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.048).结论 可调节人工晶状体与多焦点人工晶状体植入术后均可使患者的视近困难得以改善.医生应根据患者情况为其选择合适的人工晶状体.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the visual performance of accommodative IOLS and that of multifocal IOLs implantation after phacoemulsification. Methods A total of 40 eyes from 30 patients undergoing phacoemulsification received intraocular lens based on the principle of voluntary. Ten eyes from 20 patients who had implantation of Tetraflex accommodative intraocular lens were randomized into group 1. Thirty eyes from 20 patients who had implantation of +3.0 aspheric ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens were randomized into group 2. Main outcome measures included best corrected distance visual acuity, distance corrected near vision, near point, intermediate vision, and the accommodation amplitude. All the clinical data were obtained at 6months postoperatively. Results No patients had undergone any complications. At 6 months postoperatively,best corrected distance visual acuity were similar between the groupl and group2 (-0.23± 0.09LogMAR versus-0.14 ± 0.08LogMAR, P =0.085). Distance corrected near vision were similar between the two groups (J3/40cm versusJ1/35cm, P =0.035). Subjective near point were similar between the two groups [(39± 10) cm versus (35± 9) cm F=0.065, P=0.80]. The accommodation amplitude were similar between the two groups [(1.94± 0.13)D versus (2.08± 0.63)D, P =0.093]. The defocus line showed a double-peak in group 2 and single peak in group 1 which declined at intermediate distance. Conclusions Both accommodative IOLs and multifocal IOLs can correct presbyopia effectively after operation. It is best to prefer the proper IOLs for patients.     

Visual outcomes after accommodating intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the visual outcomes and accommodative amplitude in cataract patients after implantation of the Crystalens intraocular lens (IOL) (Eyeonics) versus standard monofocal IOLs. SETTING: Ten clinics in a nationwide multicenter study in the United States. METHODS: A multicenter comparative interventional case series with masked randomized postoperative examination of 224 eyes of 112 patients was performed by a single observer. Patients were divided into 2 groups (56 patients; 112 eyes each) depending on which IOL was implanted (Crystalens or monofocal). Accommodation was measured using 1 objective (dynamic retinoscopy) and 2 subjective methods (defocus and near point of accommodation). Visual acuity measurements were performed under the same conditions with standard visual acuity charts. RESULTS: Uncorrected monocular near vision was significantly better in the Crystalens group than in the standard monofocal group, with 101 of 112 eyes (90%) and 17 of 112 (15%), respectfully, reading J3 or better postoperatively. All 56 Crystalens patients had a binocular uncorrected near visual acuity of J3 or better compared with 16 of 56 (29%) standard monofocal patients. The mean postoperative monocular (0.85 +/- 0.30 [SD] versus 0.70 +/- 0.19, P<.01) and binocular (1.16 +/- 0.17 versus 1.01 +/- 0.14, P<.01) distance uncorrected visual acuities were also better in the Crystalens group than in the control group. All patients in the study achieved a corrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. Measures of accommodation were significantly higher in Crystalens patients than in the monofocal IOL patients (dynamic retinoscopy 2.42 +/- 0.39 diopters [D] versus 0.91 +/- 0.24 D, P<.01; monocular defocus 1.74 +/- 0.48 D versus 0.75 +/- 0.25 D, P<.01; monocular near point of accommodation 9.5 +/- 3.1 inches versus 34.7 +/- 9.8 inches, P<.01). Perceived accommodation (5.79 D) was significantly greater than the measured accommodation (1.96 to 2.42 D) in Crystalens patients (paired t test, P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Crystalens IOL provided better uncorrected near and distance visual outcomes than standard monofocal IOLs in all analyses performed. Patients perceived a greater accommodation than measured. Understanding why this occurred could lead to valuable advances in accommodating IOL technology.     

Early visual results with the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the clinical outcome after implantation of the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) and a foldable acrylic IOL (AcrySof, Alcon). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Tokyo Dental College, Ichikawa Hospital, Ichikawa, and Minami Aoyama Eye Clinics, Tokyo, Yokohama, Japan. METHODS: Twenty-two eyes of 16 patients with cataract had phacoemulsification implantation of 1CU accommodating IOL. Twenty eyes of 10 age-matched and sex-matched patients with cataract had the same surgery but with a foldable acrylic IOL. All patients had assessments of the amplitude of accommodation, refraction, uncorrected and best corrected distance and near visual acuity, and distance corrected near visual acuity before surgery up to 12 months after surgery. Contrast visual acuities were measured 1 year after surgery. Anterior segment photography, intraocular pressure measurements, specular microscopy, and computerized topography were also performed. RESULTS: The final best corrected distance visual acuity was above 20/25 in all eyes with the 1CU and the AcrySof IOLs. The mean distance corrected near visual acuity was significantly higher in the 1CU IOL group than in the acrylic IOL group after 3 months. None of the eyes with the AcrySof IOL implants displayed an accommodative response at any examination. The peak mean amplitude of accommodation with the 1CU IOLs was observed at 3 months and was 0.5 diopters +/- 0.44 (SD). Accommodation amplitude declined after 6 months. CONCLUSION: The 1CU IOL provided additional near acuity postoperatively, but the benefit disappeared at 12 months with a concomitant decrease in accommodation amplitude owing to an increase in anterior and posterior capsular opacities.     

双眼植入多焦和单焦人工晶状体后视力及立体视比较研究

目的 比较双眼植入ReSTOR+3D非球面多焦点人工晶状体(MIOL)与传统球面单焦点人工晶状体(SIOL)后全程视力和立体视觉情况.方法 前瞻性临床研究.对2009年5月至2010年6月在上海公利医院眼科治疗的病人18例(36只眼)植入ReSTOR+3DMIOL(SN6ADI),20例(40只眼)植入传统球面SIOL(SNt0AT).以术后第二眼为标准随访3个月.测两组的远、中、近视力及近立体视锐度,进行相应统计学分析.结果 术后裸眼及最佳远、近矫正视力两组无明显差异(t值分别为1.14、1.74、0.99,P＞0.05),在25cm、30cm、33cm、40cm、50cm、60cm、70cm近中距离上,MIOL组远视力矫正下近视力均优于SIOL组(t值分别为14.02、20.28、24.52、32.74、21.91、11.66、9.76,P＜0.01).MIOL组裸眼近立体视锐度优于SIOL组(P＜0.05).双眼矫正近视力后,两组的立体视觉差异无统计学意义(X2=64.97 P＞0.05).结论 ReSTOR+3D多焦点IOL较单焦点IOL可提供更好的近、中视力和裸眼近立体锐度,实现了很高地脱镜率,良好地全程视力使其拥有广泛的应用价值.

Abstract：

Objective To compare visual acuity from far to near and stereoscopic vision in patients who underwent bilateral implantation of aspheric diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs)with monofocal IOLs. Methods This prospective study comprised patients having implantation of an aspheric diffractive multifocal ReSTOR SN6AD1 IOL with a C3.0 D add (SN6AD1) or a monofocal IOL (SN60AT). Visual acuity from far to near distances and stereoscopic vision were evaluated 3months postoperatively. Results Multifocal IOL group comprised 36 eyes of 18 patients. Monofocal IOL group comprised 40 eyes of 20 patients. The differences between groups of uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity and corrected near visual acuity had not statistically significant (P＞0.05).The mean distance-corrected visual acuity at 25 cm, 30 cm, 33 cm, 40 cm, 50 cm, 60 cm, 70 cm were better in the multifocal group than in the monofocal group (P＜0.01). The near stereoscopic vision. in the multifocal group were better than in the monofocal group (P＜0.01). When near corrected,there were no significant difference between the stereoscopic vision for the multifocal and monofocal groups (P＞0.05). Conclusions The diffractive multifocal IOL with a low add power provides significantly better intermediate, near visual acuity than the monofocal IOL. When near uncorrected, the multifocal group has better stereoscopic vision. Spectacle independence is higher with the multifocal intraocular lens.     

Clinical study of the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens

PURPOSE: To compare the near functional capacities of patients with an accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) with those of patients with a conventional monofocal IOL. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy. METHODS: This prospective double-blind case-control study comprised 42 eyes that had phacoemulsification and implantation of 1 of 2 types of IOLs: HumanOptics accommodating 1CU(R) (study group) and Eurocrystal IFP 3G 6.00 (control group). The main outcome measures were subjective refraction, uncorrected distance acuity, best corrected distance acuity, distance corrected near acuity at 40 cm, best corrected near acuity at 40 cm, and subjective amplitude of accommodation. Patients were examined 7, 30, 90, and 180 days after surgery. RESULTS: Postoperatively, both groups had excellent uncorrected distance acuity, best corrected distance acuity, and best corrected near acuity. In the study group, the mean distance corrected near acuity (Jaeger) was 5.43 +/- 0.98 (SD) (range 4 to 7) at 7 days, 2.33 +/- 0.48 (range 2 to 3) at 1 and 3 months, and 3.66 +/- 2.12 (range 2 to 7) at 6 months. In the control group, the mean distance corrected near acuity was 7.43 +/- 0.50 (range 7 to 8) during the entire follow-up. The differences between the groups was statistically significant (P<.001). The mean amplitude of accommodation was 0.00 diopter (D) in the control group and 1.14 +/- 0.44 D (range 0.75 to 2.00 D) in the study group at 7 days, 2.36 +/- 0.28 D (range 2.00 to 2.75 D) at 30 and 90 days, and 1.90 +/- 0.77 D (range 0.75 to 2.75 D) at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The 1CU accommodating IOL provided better useful spectacle-free near visual acuity than the conventional monofocal IOL. However, the accommodating mechanism can play a role in capsule fibrosis.     

Comparison of an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens with the new generation monofocal lens using defocus curve

Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the visual outcomes of two monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), with emphasis on the defocus curve.Methods:A total of 116 consecutive eyes with cataract, undergoing phacoemulsification with IOL implantation were included in the observational case series, and divided into two groups. 71 eyes were implanted with Tecnis Eyhance and 45 with Tecnis 1 monofocal IOL. Eyes with ocular comorbidities, previous ocular surgeries and corneal astigmatism >1 Diopters (D) were excluded from the study. Complete ophthalmic evaluation including uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), corrected intermediate visual acuity (CIVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UNVA), corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) was noted and defocus levels ranging from - 4.00 D to + 1.00 D were plotted postoperatively in both groups.Results:Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was significantly better in Tecnis Eyhance group compared to Tecnis 1 monofocal. Both the IOLs have similar performance for distance vision but visual acuity at intermediate and near is significantly better with Tecnis Eyhance compared to Tecnis 1 piece IOL.Conclusion:Tecnis Eyhance IOL with its better defocus curve, not only provides good distance, but intermediate vision as well. With significantly better visual acuity across the range of near and intermediate vision, Tecnis Eyhance IOL can prove to be a viable and reasonable option for patients who are more dependent on intermediate vision in daily activities.