Visual Outcome and Stability of Hydrogel Full-Optics Accommodative Intraocular Lens

Hyung Jin Kim; Jeong Won Seo; Seung Joo Shin; Sung Kun Chung

doi:10.3341/jkos.2011.52.12.1448

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.52(12) > 1008949

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Seo, Shin, and Chung: Visual Outcome and Stability of Hydrogel Full-Optics Accommodative Intraocular Lens

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52(12):1448-1454.

Published online: 7 September 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.12.1448

Visual Outcome and Stability of Hydrogel Full-Optics Accommodative Intraocular Lens

Hyung Jin Kim, MD¹, Jeong Won Seo, MD¹, Seung Joo Shin, MD¹, Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD²

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Sahmyook Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea #62 Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-713, Korea Tel: 82-2-3779-1243, Fax: 82-2-761-6869, E-mail: eyedoc@catholic.ac.kr

Received 28 February 20111 July 2011 Accepted 18 October 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 report the visual outcome and to determine the stability of WIOL-CF^® (GELMED, Praha, Czech Republic) hydrogel full-optics accommodative intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods

The present study evaluated 20 eyes of 10 patients who underwent routine cataract surgery and WIOL-CF^® accommodative IOL implantation. Measurement included uncorrected/best corrected visual acuities (VA) at near and distant, degree of IOL decentration, degree of IOL tilting and anterior chamber depth on postoperative day 1, 1 month, 2 months, 6 months and 12 months.

Results

Result analysis was performed with 19 eyes of 10 patients, except for 1 complicated eye. At 12 months, the uncorrected distance VA of 11 eyes (57.9%) and 17 eyes (89.5%) were 20/25 and 20/40 or better, respectively. At 12 months, the uncorrected near VA of 12 eyes (63.2%) and 18 eyes (94.7%) were 20/25 and 20/40 or better, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in anterior chamber depth (p > 0.05), IOL decentration (p > 0.05) and IOL tilting (p > 0.05) on postoperative day 1, 1 month, 2 months, 6 months and 12 months.

Conclusions

The clinical results of cataract surgery with WIOL-CF were relatively satisfactory.

Keywords: Accommodative IOL, Anterior chamber depth, Decentration, Stability, Tilting

References

1. Becker KA, Martin M, Rabsilber TM, et al. Prospective, non-rand-omised, long term clinical evaluation of a foldable hydrophilic single piece intraocular lens: results of the Centerflex FDA study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90:971–4.

2. Olson RJ, Werner L, Mamalis N, Cionni R. New intraocular lens technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 140:709–16.

3. Ridley F. Safety requirements for acrylic implants. Br J Ophthalmol. 1957; 41:359–67.

4. Leyland M, Zinicola E. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery; a systematic review. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110:1789–98.

5. Findl O, Leydolt C. Meta-analysis of accommodating intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:522–7.

6. Lee JM, Seo KY, Kim EK. Comparison of optical aberrations and contrast sensitivity between monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:1882–6.

7. Song MJ, Lee MK, Park BI. A Clinical study of 3M multifocal intraocular lens implant. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1991; 32:234–40.

8. Montés-Micó R, España E, Bueno I, et al. Visual performance with multifocal intraocular lenses: mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance and near conditions. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:85–96.

9. 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.

10. Schmitz S, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, et al. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability by halogen light after monofocal and multifocal lens implantation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000; 84:1109–12.

11. Allen ED, Burton RL, Webber SK, et al. Comparison of a diffractive bifocal and a monofocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:446–51.

12. Rossetti L, Carraro F, Rovati M, Orzalesi N. Performance of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in extracapsular cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1994; 20:124–8.

13. Kamlesh , Dadeya S, Kaushik S. Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. Can J Ophthalmol. 2001; 36:197–201.

14. Davison JA, Simpson MJ. History and development of the apo-dized diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:849–58.

15. Slagsvold JE. 3M diffractive multifocal intraocular lens: eight year followup. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:402–7.

16. Cumming JS, Ritter JA. The measurement of vitreous cavity length and its comparison pre- and postoperatively. Eur J Implant Refract Surg. 1994; 6:261–72.

17. Cumming JS, Slade SG, Chayet A. Clinical evaluation of the mod-el AT-45 silicone accommodating intraocular lens: results of feasi-bility and the initial phase of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2001; 108:2005–9.

18. 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.

19. Kwon JW, Kang S, Chung SK, Baek NH. Clinical results of Crystalens^® (AT-45) accommodating intraocular Lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1179–83.

20. Kim C, Kwon JW, Wee WR, et al. Factors affecting the visual outcome of cataract surgery in the very elderly. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:905–10.

21. Morrison JD, Jay JL. Changes in visual function with normal ageing, cataract and intraocular lenses. Eye. 1993; 7:20–5.

22. Jay JL, Mammo RB, Allan D. Effect of age on visual acuity after cataract extraction. Br J Ophthalmol. 1987; 71:112–5.

23. Dogru M, Honda R, Omoto M, et al. Early visual results with the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:895–902.

24. Marchini G, Mora P, Pedrotti E, et al. Functional assessment of two different accommodative intraocular lenses compared with a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114:2038–43.

25. Küchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, et al. Comparison of 6-month results of implantation of the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens with conventional intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:318–24.

Figure 1.

The design of WIOL-CF® polyfocal full-optics accommodative intraocular lens. O.D. = optic diameter; C.T.= central thickness.

Figure 2.

Scheimpflug camera photograph of postoperative state.

Figure 3.

Uncorrected distant visual acuity after WIOL-CF® accommodative intraocular lens implantation, according to the followup period (n = 19).

Figure 4.

Uncorrected near visual acuity after WIOL-CF® accommodative intraocular lens implantation, according to the followup period (n = 19).

Figure 5.

Best corrected distant visual acuity after WIOL-CF® accommodative intraocular lens implantation, according to the followup period (n = 19).

Figure 6.

Best corrected near visual acuity after WIOL-CF® accommodative intraocular lens implantation, according to the followup period (n = 19).

Table 1.

Patient demographics

Sex (M/F)	3/7
Age (yr)	67 ± 9.7
Axial length (mm)	23.61 ± 0.86
Predicted postoperative refraction (diopter)	-0.12 ± 0.09

Values are presented as number or mean ± SD.

Table 2.

Postoperative changes in the intraocular lens decentration (mm), tilting (°) and anterior chamber depth (mm)

	Postoperative followup periods					p-value^∗
	1 day	1 month	2 months	6 months	12 months	p-value^∗
Decentration (mm)	0.19 ± 0.07	0.20 ± 0.07	0.21 ± 0.09	0.19 ± 0.07	0.19 ± 0.09	0.27
Tilting (°)	3.05 ± 0.47	3.11 ± 0.50	3.24 ± 0.48	3.14 ± 0.50	3.18 ± 0.46	0.24
Anterior chamber depth (mm)	3.60 ± 0.29	3.60 ± 0.32	3.59 ± 0.33	3.60 ± 0.34	3.60 ± 0.31	0.57

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

^∗ p < 0.05: Kruskal-Wallis test.

TOOLS

Similar articles