Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.53(4) > 1009328

TOOLS
Han, Oh, Kim, and Chung: The Prognostic Factors that Influence in Near Vision after Accommodative Intraocular Lens Implantation
Original Article
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society

Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2012; 53(4): 510-515.

Published online: 17 April 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2012.53.4.510

The Prognostic Factors that Influence in Near Vision after Accommodative Intraocular Lens Implantation

Jae Hyung Han, MD1, Tae Hoon Oh, MD1, Ki San Kim, MD, PhD2, Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD1

1Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

2Kim Ki San Eye Center, Daegu, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD. Department of Ophthalmology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, #10, 63-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-713, Korea. Tel: 82-2-3779-1848, Fax: 82-2-761-6869, eyedoc@catholic.ac.kr

Received 25 May 2011       Accepted 16 March 2012

Copyright © 2012 The Korean Ophthalmological Society

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the prognostic factors to determine the uncorrected near visual acuity of patients who undergone routine cataract surgery and WIOL-CF® (Gelmed international, Kamenne Zehrovice, Czech Republic) accommodative intraocular lens implantation.

Methods

This study evaluated 46 eyes of 27 patients who had undergone routine cataract surgery and WIOL-CF® accommodative IOL implantation. We checked visual acuities at near and distant before surgery. And we also checked age and gender of patients and manifest refraction, corneal astigmatism and axial length of eyes at that time. We analyzed association between these factors and uncorrected near visual acuity at postoperative 6 and 12 month.

Results

Univariate linear regression analyses between uncorrected near visual acuity and preoperative patients characteristics suggested that the age of patients was the only statistically significant independent variable on uncorrected near visual acuity at postoperative 6 (p < 0.001) and 12 (p < 0.001) month. Multiple regression analyses also revealed the same results (p = 0.021 at postoperative 6 month and p = 0.042 at postoperative 12 month).

Conclusions

This study suggest that the age is the one of the most important prognostic factors of postoperative uncorrected near visual acuity after WIOL-CF® accommodative intraocular lens implantation.

Keywords: Accommodative IOL, Near vision, Prognostic factor, WIOL-CF

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Uncorrected near visual acuity after WIOL-CF® accommodative intraocular lens implantation, according to the follow-up period.
jkos-53-510-g001
Figure 2
Linear regression model of uncorrected near visual acuity at postoperative 6 (A) and 12 month (B) with age.
jkos-53-510-g002
Figure 3
Uncorrected near visual acuity after WIOL-CF® accommodative intraocular lens implantation, according to age.
jkos-53-510-g003
Table 1
Preoperative characteristics of eyes for WIOL-CF® implantation
jkos-53-510-i001

UCVA = uncorrected visual acuity; log MAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; MR = manifest refraction; D = diopter.

*Number of patients.

Table 2
Association of uncorrected near visual acuity with preoperative patients characteristics by univariate linear regression analyses
jkos-53-510-i002

SE = standard error; UCVA = uncorrected visual acuity; log MAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; MR = manifest refraction; D = diopter.

*Coefficient; †n = 42, Manifest refraction of 4 eyes could not be checked due to lens opacity.

Table 3
Analyses of uncorrected near visual acuity between male and female at postoperative 6 and 12 month
jkos-53-510-i003

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

SD = standard deviation; log MAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution.

*p-value for gender difference by Mann-Whitney rank sum test.

Table 4
Association of uncorrected near visual acuity with preoperative patients characteristics by multiple regression analyses (n = 42)*
jkos-53-510-i004

SE = standard error; UCVA = uncorrected visual acuity; log MAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; MR = manifest refraction; D = diopter.

*n = 42, Manifest refraction of 4 eyes could not be checked due to lens opacity; †Coefficient; ‡Dummy variable, we regard male as absent (=0) and female as present (=1).

References

1. Bi H, Cui Y, Ma X, et al. Early clinical evaluation of AcrySof ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens for treatment of cataract. Ophthalmologica. 2008. 222:11–16.
2. Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Haider SI, et al. Functional vision with bilateral ReZoom and ReSTOR intraocular lenses 6 months after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007. 33:2057–2061.
3. Toto L, Falconio G, Vecchiarino L, et al. Visual performance and biocompatibility of 2 multifocal diffractive IOLs: six-month comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007. 33:1419–1425.
4. Souza CE, Muccioli C, Soriano ES, et al. Visual performance of AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL: a prospective comparative trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006. 141:827–832.
5. Vingolo EM, Grenga P, Iacobelli L, Grenga R. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity: AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive versus AcrySof SA60AT monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007. 33:1244–1247.
6. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Baamonde MB, Montés-Micó R. Prospective visual evaluation of apodized diffractive intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007. 33:1235–1243.
7. Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Aggarwal RK, Kasaby S. ReSTOR intraocular lens implantation in cataract surgery: quality of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006. 32:1459–1463.
8. 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. 144:347–357.
9. Sen HN, Sarikkola AU, Uusitalo RJ, Laatikainen L. Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004. 30:2483–2493.
10. 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. 107:2040–2048.
11. Sheppard AL, Bashir A, Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Accommodating intraocular lenses: a review of design concepts, usage and assessment methods. Clin Exp Optom. 2010. 93:441–452.
12. Charman WN. Restoring accommodation to the presbyopic eye: how do we measure success? J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003. 29:2251–2254.
13. Swegmark G. Studies with impedance cyclography on human ocular accommodation at different ages. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1969. 47:1186–1206.
14. Bacskulin A, Gast R, Bergmann U, Guthoff R. [Ultrasound biomicroscopy imaging of accommodative configuration changes in the presbyopic ciliary body]. Ophthalmologe. 1996. 93:199–203. (Article in German).
15. Strenk SA, Semmlow JL, Strenk LM, et al. Age-related changes in human ciliary muscle and lens: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999. 40:1162–1169.
16. Kamppeter BA, Sauder G, Jonas JB. Contrast and glare sensitivity after implantation of AcrySof and Human Optics 1CU intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2005. 15:458–461.
17. Wolffsohn JS, Hunt OA, Naroo S, et al. Objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics with the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006. 47:1230–1235.
18. Alió JL, Tavolato M, De la Hoz F, et al. Near vision restoration with refractive lens exchange and pseudoaccommodating and multifocal refractive and diffractive intraocular lenses: comparative clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004. 30:2494–2503.
19. Kim JH, Park CS, Chung ES, Chung TY. Changes in anterior chamber depth and refraction after accommodative intraocular lens implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007. 48:1479–1486.
20. Ryu HW, Chung SK. Evaluation of accommodating potency of the accommodative intraocular lens by change of anterior chamber depth. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006. 47:748–754.
21. Kim JH, Park CS, Chung TY, Chung ES. Clinical evaluation of AT-45 implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007. 48:368–375.
22. Jeon S, Kim HS. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of cataract surgery in highly myopic Koreans. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2011. 25:84–89.
TOOLS
Similar articles