Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.50(5) > 1008546

TOOLS
Kang, You, Park, and Yoon: Comparison of Visual Function Among Aspheric Intraocular Lenses
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009;50(5):691-697.

Published online: 7 September 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.5.691

Comparison of Visual Function Among Aspheric Intraocular Lenses

In Seong Kang, MD1, In Cheon You, MD, PhD2, Yeoung Geol Park, MD, PhD1, Kyung Chul Yoon, MD, PhD1

1Department of Ophthalmology, Chonnam National University and Hospital, Gwangju, Korea

2Department of Ophthalmology, Chonbuk National University, College of Medicine, Jeonju, Korea

Address reprint requests to Kyung-Chul Yoon, MD, PhD Department of Opthalmology, Chonnam National University Medical School & Hospital #8 Hak-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-757, Korea Tel: 82-62-220-6742, Fax: 82-62-227-1642, E-mail: kcyoon@chonnam.ac.kr

Received 23 June 2008       Accepted 10 February 2009

Copyright © 2009 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the visual function among 3 aspheric intraocular lenses (IOLs) after cataract surgery.

Methods

A prospective analysis among 70 eyes of 68 patients who had undergone phacoemulsification and implantation of aspheric IOLs (Acrysof IQ, 30 eyes; Tecnis ZA9003, 20 eyes; Akreos Adapt-AO, 20 eyes) was performed. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refraction, coma, trefoil, spherical aberration, root-mean-square (RMS), contrast sensitivity test, satisfaction and glare was evaluated during the follow-up period of 3 months.

Results

There were no significant differences in BCVA, satisfaction, glare, coma, trefoil, RMS and contrast sensitivity test among the 3 aspheric IOLs. Spherical aberration in Akreos Adapt-AO (0.04±0.05 μ m) was higher compared with Acrysof IQ (0.03±0.04 μ m) and Tecnis ZA9003 (0.11±0.03 μ m)(p＜0.01). The predictability of postoperative spherical equivalent in the Akreos Adapt-AO group (−0.57±0.22D) represented a statistically significant myopic refractive error compared with the Acrysof IQ (0.01±0.77D) and the Tecnis ZA9003 (−0.20±0.71D) groups (p=0.04).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in visual function except spherical aberration, which was highest in the Akreos Adapt-AO group.

Keywords: Aspheric intraocular lens, Contrast sensitivity test, Spherical aberration, Spherical equivalent

References

1. Bellucci R, Morselli S, Piers P. Comparison of wavefront aberrations and optical quality of eyes implanted with five different intraocular lenses. J Refrac Surg. 2004; 20:297–306.
crossref
2. Guirao A, Gonzalez C, Redondo M, et al. Average optical perfomance of the human eye as a function of age in a normal population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:203–13.
3. Yoon G, Jeong TM, Cox IG, Williams DR. Vision improvement by correcting higher-order aberrations with phase plates in normal eyes. J Refract Surg. 2004; 20:S523–7.
crossref
4. Guirao A, Renondo M, Geraghty E, et al. Corneal optical aberrations and retinal image quality in patients in whom monofocal intraocular lenses were implanted. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:1143–51.
crossref
5. Ricci F, Scuderi G, Missiroli F, et al. Low contrast visual acuity in pseudophakic patients implanted with an anterior surface modified prolate intraocular lens. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2004; 82:718–22.
crossref
6. Tzelikis PF, Akaishi L, Trindade FC, Boteon JE. Spherical aberration and contrast sensitivity in eyes implanted with aspheric and spherical intraocular lenses: a comparative study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:827–33.
crossref
7. Caporossi A, Martone G, Casprini F, Rapisarda L. Prospective randomized study of clinical perfomance of 3 aspheric and 2 spherical intraocular lenses in 250 eyes. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:639–48.
8. Johansson B, Sundelin S, Wikberg-Matsson A, et al. Visual and optical performance of the Akreos Adapt Advanced Optics and Tecnis Z9000 intraocular lenses: Swedish multicenter study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1565–72.
9. Franchini A. Compromise between spherical and chromatic aberration and depth of focus in aspheric intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:497–509.
crossref
10. Mester U, Dillinger P, Anterist N. Impact of a modified optic design on visual function: clinical comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:652–60.
crossref
11. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS. Aspheric intraocular lens selection: the evolution of refractive cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008; 19:1–4.
crossref
12. Piers PA, Weeber HA, Artal P, Norrby S. Theoretical comparison of aberration-correcting customized and aspheric intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:374–84.
crossref
13. Nin YK, Jansonius NM, Geraphty E, et al. Effect of intraocular lens implantation on visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and depth of focus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:2073–81.
14. Pandita D, Raj SM, Vasavada VA, et al. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability after implantation of acrysof IQ natural aspheric intraocular lens: prospective randomized masked clinical trial. J Cataract Refrat Surg. 2007; 33:603–10.
15. Kasper T, Buhren J, Kohnen T. Intraindividual comparison of higher-order aberrations after implantation of aspherical and spherical intraocular lenses as a function of pupil diameter. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:78–84.
crossref
16. Bellucci R, Morselli S, Piers P. Comparison of wavefront aberrations and optical quality of eyes implanted with five different intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2004; 20:297–306.
crossref
17. Casprini F, Balestrazzi A, Tosi GM, et al. Glare disability and spherical aberration with five foldable intraocular lenses: a prospective randomized study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005; 83:20–5.
crossref
18. Tzelikis PF, Akaishi L, Trindade FC, Boteon JE. Spherical aberration and contrast sensitivity in eyes implanted with aspheric and spherical intraocular lenses: a comparative study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:827–33.
crossref
19. Petternel V, Menapace R, Findl O, et al. Effect of optic edge design and haptic angulation on postoperative intraocular lens position change. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:52–7.
crossref
20. Heo H, Kim HG, Yoon KC, Park YG. Comparison of long-term results between one-piece and three-piece acrylate intraocular lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:245–52.
crossref
21. Ji YS, Lee KH, Park YG, Yoon KC. Clinical results of implantation of hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1065–71.

Figure 1.
Comparison of coma (A), trefoil (B) spherical aberration (C) and root-mean-square (RMS) (D) among three aspheric intraocular lenses. Preop.=preoperative; Postop.=postoperative; wk=week; ms=month.* p<0.05 compared with the acrysof IQ and tecnis ZA9003 group at postoperative 1 week; † p<0.05 compared with the acrysof IQ and tecnis ZA9003 group at postoperative 3 months.
jkos-50-691f1.tif
Figure 2.
Comparison of contrast sensitivity test under photopic condition (A) and mesopic condition (B) three months postoperatively.
jkos-50-691f2.tif
Table 1.!
Characteristics of patients in aspheric intraocular lens groups
Variables Acrysof IQ SN60WF Tecnis Z9003 Akreos Adapt-AO p-value
Number of patients/eyes 28/30 20/20 20/20
Mean age (years) 61.2±11.6 61.7±9.3 63.6±12.6 0.52
Male/Female 13/15 10/10 11/9 0.65
Follow-up period (months) 3.4±0.3 3.5±0.4 3.3±0.2 0.60

Statistical method=Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 2.
Changes of the preoperative and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visua acuity (BCVA) and spherical equivalent among three aspheric intraocular lenses
Variables Acrysof IQ SN60WF Tecnis Z9003 Akreos Adapt-AO p-value
UCVA (logMAR)
Preop. 1.26±0.24 1.36±0.17 1.47±0.14 0.62
Postop. 3 ms 0.25±0.31 0.33±0.37 0.45±0.42 0.81
BCVA (logMAR)
Preop.† 1.06±0.60 1.16±0.68 1.38±0.81 0.58
Postop.‡ 3 ms§ 0.22±0.31 0.28±0.39 0.42±1.09 0.71
Spherical equivalent (D)*
Preop. −1.47±4.96 −1.69±2.57 −1.36±2.12 0.47
Postop. 3 ms −0.47±1.10 −0.63±0.48 −0.64±1.19 0.57

* D=diopters

† Preop.=preoperative

‡ Postop.=postoperative

§ ms=months.

Statistical method=Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 3.
Changes of the postoperative anterior chamber depth and the distance between posterior surface of iris and anterior surface of intraocular lens (IOL)
Acrysof IQ Tecnis ZA9003 Akreos Adapt-AO p-value
Anterior chamber depth (mm)
Postop. 1 wk 3.65±0.55 3.81±0.51 3.54±0.36 0.19
Postop. 3 ms 3.68±0.65 3.79 ±0.42 3.60±0.62 0.44
Distance from iris to IOL (mm)
Postop. 1 wk 0.33±0.19 0.49 ±0.18 0.28±0.12 0.42
Postop. 3 ms 0.34±0.15 0.47±0.17 0.29±0.17 0.35

Statistical method=Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 4.
Characteristics of the three aspheric intraocular lenses
Characteristics Acrysof IQ SN60WF Tecnis Z9003 Akreos Adapt-AO
Lens 1-piece 3-piece 1-piece
Optic material Hydrophobic acrylic Hydrophobic acrylic Hydrophilic acrylic
Refractive index 1.55 1.47 1.458
Optic size (mm) 6 6 6
Overall length (mm) 13 13 10.5∼11.0
Design Prolate posterior surface Prolate anterior surface Biconcave aspheric anterior and posterior
Haptic angulation 0 5 0
Haptic material Hydrophobic acrylic PMMA Hydrophilic acrylic
TOOLS
Similar articles