Eui Chun Kang; Eung Kweon Kim; Tai-im Kim

doi:10.3341/jkos.2011.52.11.1275

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.52(11) > 1008918

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kang, Kim, and Kim: Comparisons of Visual Acuity, Spherical Aberration and Contrast Sensitivity among Spheric, Aspheric ReSTOR®, and Crystalens HD® Lenses

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52(11):1275-1280.

Published online: 7 September 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.11.1275

Comparisons of Visual Acuity, Spherical Aberration and Contrast Sensitivity among Spheric, Aspheric ReSTOR^®, and Crystalens HD^® Lenses

Eui Chun Kang, MD, Eung Kweon Kim, MD, PhD, Tai-im Kim, MD, PhD

The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Tai-im Kim, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Severance Hospital #50 Yeonse-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea Tel: 82-2-2228-3570, Fax: 82-2-312-0541, E-mail: taeimkim@gmail.com

Received 20 December 2010 Revised 24 May 2011 Accepted 27 September 2011

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 assess visual acuity, spherical aberration and contrast sensitivity in patients who were implanted with spheric, aspheric ReSTOR^® or Crystalens HD^® lenses.

Methods

The present study enrolled 16 patients (32 eyes) implanted with biliateral spheric ReSTOR^® (four patients, spheric ReSTOR group), bilateral aspheric ReSTOR^® (seven patients, aspheric ReSTOR group) or bilateral Crystalens HD^® (five patients, Crystalens HD group) lenses. At three months postoperatively, visual acuity, spherical aberration, and contrast sensitivity were evaluated.

Results

Three months after surgery, there were no significant differences in uncorrected distant or intermediate visual acuity among the three groups. Uncorrected near visual acuity in the spheric and aspheric ReSTOR groups was superior to that in the Crystalens HD group, and the aspheric ReSTOR group had less spherical aberration. Mesopic contrast sensitivity in the Crystalens HD group was significantly higher at three cycles per degree compared to those in the spheric and aspheric ReSTOR groups.

Conclusions

Uncorrected near visual acuity in the Crystalens HD group was inferior to those in the spheric and aspheric ReSTOR groups, but the mesopic contrast sensitivity of the Crystalens HD group at three cycles per degree was superior to those in the spheric and aspheric ReSTOR groups.

Keywords: Accommodative, Aspheric, Diffractive, Multifocal, Spheric

References

1. Lane SS, Morris M, Nordan L, et al. Multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2006; 19:89–105.

2. Hütz WW, Eckhardt HB, Röhrig B, Grolmus R. Reading ability with 3 multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:2015–21.

3. Kohnen T, Allen D, Boureau C, et al. European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:584.e1.

4. Blaylock JF, Si Z, Vickers C. Visual and refractive status at different focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1464–73.

5. Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Aggarwal RK, Kasaby S. ReSTOR intraocular lens implantation in cataract surgery: quality of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1459–63.

6. Sallet G. Refractive outcome after bilateral implantation of an apodized diffractive intraocular lens. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2006; 299:67–73.

7. Souza CE, Muccioli C, Soriano ES, et al. Visual performance of AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL: a prospective comparative trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 141:827–32.

8. Cumming JS, Colvard DM, Dell SJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Crystalens AT-45 accommodating intraocular lens: results of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:812–25.

9. Barbero S, Marcos S, Jiménez-Alfaro I. Optical aberrations of intraocular lenses measured in vivo and in vitro. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2003; 20:1841–51.

10. Yun JH, Ahn K, Lee DH, et al. Spheric, aspheric ReSTOR intraocular lens: three-month results and preoperative clinical factors influencing patient's satisfaction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 51:14–21.

11. Pepose JS, Qazi MA, Davies J, et al. Visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens implants. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 144:347–57.

12. Stachs O, Schneider H, Beck R, Guthoff R. Pharmacological-induced haptic changes and the accommodative performance in patients with the AT-45 accommodative IOL. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22:145–50.

13. Lee HS, Park SH, Kim MS, et al. Clinical results and some problems of multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lens implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1235–41.

14. Sen HN, Sarikkola AU, Uusitalo RJ, Laatikainen L. Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:2483–93.

15. Steinert RF, Post CT Jr, Brint SF, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-masked comparison of a zonal-progressive multifocal intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 1992; 99:853–60.

16. Percival SP, Setty SS. Prospectively randomized trial comparing the pseudoaccommodation of the AMO Array multifocal lens and a monofocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993; 19:26–31.

17. Jacobi PC, Konen W. Effect of age and astigmatism on the AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1995; 21:556–61.

18. Javitt JC, Wang F, Trentacost DJ, et al. Outcomes of cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: functional status and quality of life. Ophthalmology. 1997; 104:589–99.

19. Javitt JC, Steinert RF. Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a multinational clinical trial evaluating clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:2040–8.

20. Jacobi PC, Dietlein TS, Lüke C, Jacobi FK. Multifocal intraocular lens implantation in prepresbyopic patients with unilateral cataract. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:680–6.

21. Kim JH, Lee JW, Chung JL, et al. Combined implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses in senile cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1632–8.

Figure 1.

Mean postoperative uncorrected visual acuities of the 3 groups. There was significant difference in the uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA) (p < 0.001, ANOVA test). ^* UCNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity; UCIVA = uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; UCDVA = uncorrected distant visual acuity. Statistically significant in ANOVA (p < 0.05).

Figure 2.

Contrast sensitivity test of the three groups at photopic condition (^* p < 0.05).

Figure 3.

Contrast sensitivity test of the three groups under mesopic conditions (^* p < 0.05).

Table 1.

Baseline characterisctics of participants

	Spheric ReSTOR	Aspheric ReSTOR	Crystalens HD
No. of patients	4	7	5
No. of eyes (OD/OS)	8 (4/4)	14 (7/7)	10 (5/5)
Gender (M/F)	2/2	3/4	2/3
Mean ± SD (age)	61.13 ± 2.10	64.38 ± 2.32	63.42 ± 2.25

Table 2.

Postoperative aberrations (μ m) measured by iTrace aberrometer among 3 groups (mean ± standard deviation)

	RMS^* total	RMS HOA^†	SA^‡ (Ocular)	SA (Internal)	SA (Cornea)	Coma 7 A	Coma 8 A	Trefoil 6 A	Trefoil 9 A
Spheric ReSTOR	1.149 ± 0.452	0.677 ± 0.439	0.245 ± 0.229	−0.005 ± 0.172	0.250 ± 0.086	0.173 ± 0.197	−0.107 ± 0.153	−0.120 ± 0.102	0.135 ± 0.225
Aspheric ReSTOR	0.675 ± 0.267	0.624 ± 0.444	0.040 ± 0.141	−0.155 ± 0.194	0.202 ± 0.112	0.305 ± 0.276	−0.035 ± 0.113	−0.022 ± 0.185	0.098 ± 0.148
Crystalens HD	1.021 ± 0.353	0.359 ± 0.342	0.215 ± 0.234	−0.025 ± 0.233	0.233 ± 0.074	0.349 ± 0.376	−0.076 ± 0.206	0.021 ± 0.166	0.060 ± 0.217
p-value	0.008	0.208	0.041	0.292	0.385	0.445	0.573	0.196	0.709

^* RMS = root mean square

^† RMS HOA = root mean square of higher-order aberration

^‡ SA = spherical aberration.

TOOLS

Similar articles