|
|
 |
 |
104. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft 2006
Abstract
Abstract
FR.06.14 Contrast sensitivity after diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a controlateral comparison Renieri G., Eisenmann D.
Klinik Gut, St Moritz and Kreuzspital Chur, Chur, Switzerland Objective: Loss of contrast sensitivity has been reported as the principal drawback of multifocal IOLs (MIOLs). A reduction of contrast sensitivity can be expected in diffractive and refractive MIOLs, caused by simultaneous projection of two or more images on the retina. Contrast sensitivity testing with the addition of halogen glare allows quantification of glare disability similar to that which people encounter in their daily lives. In this study, an intraindividual comparison of contrast sensitivity and glare disability with a diffractive and a refractive MIOL was performed.
Methods: 18 patients affected with bilateral cataract were selected to have lens surgery with asymmetrical MIOL implantation. 18 eyes received a diffractive MIOL (Alcon ReSTOR), and the 18 fellow eyes were implanted with a refractive, zonal-progressive MIOL (AMO Array 2). Contrast sensitivity at four spatial frequencies (3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree) with and without a glare source was measured using the halogen glare test CSV 1000 five months after second lens implantation. Pelly-Robson contrast sensitivity test and Mesoptometer II (Mesotest) with and without a glare source were also performed.
Results: With the halogen glare test CSV 1000, no statistical significant differences were observed between ReSTOR and Array 2 MIOLs at any spatial frequency, with or without glare source. The two MIOL types reported also very similar contrast sensitivity values with the Pelli Robson charts (1.65±0.15 with ReSTOR and 1.62±0.13 with Array 2). Mesoptometer II allows testing glare disability under mesopic conditions. With this test, only 56% of ReSTOR implanted-eye and 50% of Array 2 eyes reached a contrast sensitivity suitable with DOG (German Society of Ophthalmology) recommendations for car-driving license.
Conclusions: In this intraindividual comparison, eyes implanted with diffractive ReSTOR and refractive Array 2 MIOLs showed very similar contrast sensitivity and glare disability. The new apodized, diffractive ReSTOR seems to perform better than previous models of diffractive MIOLs, which were reported to induce decreased contrast sensitivity and greater glare disability when compared to zonal-progressive MIOLs.
Zurück | Back
|
