Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pseudophakic Approaches for Addressing Presbyopia

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Albert and Jakobiec's Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology

  • 78 Accesses

Abstract

Purpose: To understand the nature of presbyopia and the various pseudophakic treatment methods available.

Findings: Presbyopia is a normal and unavoidable age-related condition that results in the progressive worsening of the ability to focus clearly on close objects. This loss of accommodation affects near-vision tasks and if untreated can impact quality life. Presbyopia can easily be treated with glasses and contact lenses, but developments in presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses for implantation during refractive lens exchange or cataract extraction make surgery a viable option for many patients.

Summary: Glasses and contact lenses are very effective methods for the treatment of presbyopia, but the prevalence of presbyopia along with the standardization of refractive (cataract) surgery and developments in intraocular lenses have led more and more patients to electively choose refractive lens surgery. The shift toward surgical treatment introduces the increased possibility of spectacle-free living with current technology but also additional visual disturbances that need to be addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 5,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 6,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. von Helmholtz H. Helmholtz’s treatise on physiological optics. New York: Dover Publications; 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schachar RA, Tello C, Cudmore DP, Liebmann JM, Black TD, Ritch R. In vivo increase of the human lens equatorial diameter during accommodation. Am J Phys. 1996;271(3 Pt 2):R670–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Van de Sompel D, Kunkel GJ, Hersh PS, Smits AJ. Model of accommodation: contributions of lens geometry and mechanical properties to the development of presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(11):1960–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McDonnell PJ, Lee P, Spritzer K, Lindblad AS, Hays RD. Associations of presbyopia with vision-targeted health-related quality of life. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2003;121(11):1577–81.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Goertz AD, Stewart WC, Burns WR, Stewart JA, Nelson LA. Review of the impact of presbyopia on quality of life in the developing and developed world. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(6):497–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Presbyopia: effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;68:124–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Apple DJ, Sims J. Harold Ridley and the invention of the intraocular lens. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;40(4):279–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ridley H. Intra-ocular acrylic lenses after cataract extraction. 1952. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(10):758–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Keates RH, Pearce JL, Schneider RT. Clinical results of the multifocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1987;13(5):557–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Keates RH. The first American experience with the multifocal lens. Dev Ophthalmol. 1989;18:121–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van Oye R. The multifocal intraocular lens. Bulletin de la Societe Belge D’Ophtalmologie. 1989;231:97–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Duffey RJ, Zabel RW, Lindstrom RL. Multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990;16(4):423–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hessemer V, Eisenmann D, Jacobi KW. Multifocal intraocular lenses-an assessment of current status. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilk. 1993;203(1):19–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Ho SM, Wong R, Schlenther G, Cronje S, et al. Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia. Arch Ophthalmol (Chicago: 1960). 2008;126(12):1731–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zebardast N, Friedman DS, Vitale S. The prevalence and demographic associations of presenting near-vision impairment among adults living in the United States. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;174:134–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. He M, Abdou A, Naidoo KS, Sapkota YD, Thulasiraj RD, Varma R, et al. Prevalence and correction of near vision impairment at seven sites in China, India, Nepal, Niger, South Africa, and the United States. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(1):107–116.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Frick KD, Joy SM, Wilson DA, Naidoo KS, Holden BA. The global burden of potential productivity loss from uncorrected presbyopia. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1706–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gualdi L, Gualdi F, Rusciano D, Ambrósio R, Salomão MQ, Lopes B, et al. Ciliary muscle electrostimulation to restore accommodation in patients with early presbyopia: preliminary results. J Refract Surg (Thorofare: 1995). 2017;33(9):578–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Girum M, Desalegn Gudeta A, Shiferaw Alemu D. Determinants of high unmet need for presbyopia correction: a community-based study in northwest Ethiopia. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2017;9:25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Muhit M, Minto H, Parvin A, Jadoon MZ, Islam J, Yasmin S, et al. Prevalence of refractive error, presbyopia, and unmet need of spectacle coverage in a northern district of Bangladesh: rapid assessment of refractive error study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2018;25(2):126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheng F, Shan L, Song W, Fan P, Yuan H. Distance- and near-visual impairment in rural Chinese adults in Kailu, Inner Mongolia. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(4):407–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Patel I, West SK. Presbyopia: prevalence, impact, and interventions. Community Eye Health. 2007;20(63):40–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jiang GM, Tang SH, Shan Z. Personalizing of spectacles. Eye Sci. 2012;27(4):220–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(2):E98–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Perez-Prados R, Pinero DP, Perez-Cambrodi RJ, Madrid-Costa D. Soft multifocal simultaneous image contact lenses: a review. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100(2):107–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Garcia-Gonzalez M, Teus MA, Hernandez-Verdejo JL. Visual outcomes of LASIK-induced monovision in myopic patients with presbyopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;150(3):381–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vargas-Fragoso V, Alio JL. Corneal compensation of presbyopia: PresbyLASIK: an updated review. Eye Vision (Lond). 2017;4:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kohnen T, Böhm M, Herzog M, Hemkeppler E, Petermann K, Lwowski C. Near visual acuity and patient-reported outcomes in presbyopic patients after bilateral multifocal aspheric LASIK excimer laser surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;

    Google Scholar 

  29. Davidson RS, Dhaliwal D, Hamilton DR, Jackson M, Patterson L, Stonecipher K, et al. Surgical correction of presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(6):920–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lindstrom RL, Macrae SM, Pepose JS, Hoopes PC. Corneal inlays for presbyopia correction. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2013;24(4):281–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Malandrini A, Martone G, Menabuoni L, Catanese AM, Tosi GM, Balestrazzi A, et al. Bifocal refractive corneal inlay implantation to improve near vision in emmetropic presbyopic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(9):1962–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Fernandez-Buenaga R, Pikkel J, Maldonado M. Multifocal intraocular lenses: an overview. Surv Ophthalmol. 2017;62(5):611–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Leyland M, Pringle E. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):Cd003169.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kohnen T. Multifocal IOL technology: a successful step on the journey toward presbyopia treatment. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(12):2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Werner L, Olson RJ, Mamalis N. New technology IOL optics. Ophthalmol Clin N Am. 2006;19(4):469–83.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Beiko G. Status of accommodative intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007;18(1):74–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Montalban R, Ortega P. Near visual outcomes with single-optic and dual-optic accommodating intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(9):1568–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Menapace R, Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Leydolt-Koeppl C. Accommodating intraocular lenses: a critical review of present and future concepts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245(4):473–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Leng L, Chen Q, Yuan Y, Hu D, Zhu D, Wang J, et al. Anterior segment biometry of the accommodating intraocular Lens and its relationship with the amplitude of accommodation. Eye Contact Lens. 2017;43(2):123–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Malecaze FJ, Gazagne CS, Tarroux MC, Gorrand J-M. Scleral expansion bands for presbyopia1 1The authors have no financial interest in the products or devices mentioned herein. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(12):2165–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gil-Cazorla R, Shah S, Naroo SA. A review of the surgical options for the correction of presbyopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(1):62–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kohnen T, Kook D, Auffarth GU, Derhartunian V. Use of multifocal intraocular lenses and criteria for patient selection. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. 2008;105(6):527–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. McAlinden C. The importance of doctor-patient communication. Br J Hosp Med (London: 2005). 2014;75(2):64–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Panagiotopoulou EK, Ntonti P, Vlachou E, Georgantzoglou K, Labiris G. Patients’ expectations in lens extraction surgery: a systematic review. Acta Med (Hradec Kralove). 2018;61(4):115–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Makhotkina NY, Nijkamp MD, Berendschot T, van den Borne B, Nuijts R. Effect of active evaluation on the detection of negative dysphotopsia after sequential cataract surgery: discrepancy between incidences of unsolicited and solicited complaints. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(1):81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Calladine D, Evans JR, Shah S, Leyland M. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(9):Cd003169.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kohnen T, Buhren J, Cichocki M, Kasper T, Terzi E, Ohrloff C. Optical quality after refractive corneal surgery. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. 2006;103(3):184–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O, Savastano A, Rizzo S. Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;56(10):1913–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. de Vries NE, Nuijts RM. Multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: literature review of benefits and side effects. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(2):268–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Alió JL, Pikkel J. Multifocal intraocular lenses: neuroadaptation. In: Multifocal intraocular lenses. Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Springer; 2014. p. 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mamalis N, Brubaker J, Davis D, Espandar L, Werner L. Complications of foldable intraocular lenses requiring explantation or secondary intervention – 2007 survey update. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(9):1584–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kamiya K, Hayashi K, Shimizu K, Negishi K, Sato M, Bissen-Miyajima H. Multifocal intraocular lens explantation: a case series of 50 eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(2):215–220.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Mester U, Vaterrodt T, Goes F, Huetz W, Neuhann I, Schmickler S, et al. Impact of personality characteristics on patient satisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation: results from the “happy patient study”. J Refract Surg (Thorofare: 1995). 2014;30(10):674–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. See CW, Iftikhar M, Woreta FA. Preoperative evaluation for cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2019;30(1):3–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. O’Doherty MA, O’Doherty JV, O’Keefe M. Outcome of LASIK for myopia in women on hormone replacement therapy. J Refract Surg (Thorofare: 1995). 2006;22(4):350–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. de Rojas Silva V, Rodriguez-Conde R, Cobo-Soriano R, Beltran J, Llovet F, Baviera J. Laser in situ keratomileusis in patients with a history of ocular herpes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(11):1855–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bower KS, Woreta F. Update on contraindications for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014;25(4):251–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Koch DD, Samuelson SW, Villarreal R, Haft EA, Kohnen T. Changes in pupil size induced by phacoemulsification and posterior chamber lens implantation: consequences for multifocal lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996;22(5):579–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sahbaz I. Assessment of differences in pupil size following phacoemulsification surgery. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2018;8(3):155–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Alio JL, Grzybowski A, El Aswad A, Romaniuk D. Refractive lens exchange. Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59(6):579–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kohnen T, Kook D, Auffarth GU, Derhartunian V. Use of multifocal intraocular lenses and criteria for patient selection. Ophthalmologe. 2008;105(6):527–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Auffarth GU, Rabsilber TM, Kohnen T, Holzer MP. Design and optical principles of multifocal lenses. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. 2008;105(6):522–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Goldberg DG, Goldberg MH, Shah R, Meagher JN, Ailani H. Pseudophakic mini-monovision: high patient satisfaction, reduced spectacle dependence, and low cost. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18(1):293.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Durrie DS. The effect of different monovision contact lens powers on the visual function of emmetropic presbyopic patients (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2006;104:366–401.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhang F, Sugar A, Arbisser L, Jacobsen G, Artico J. Crossed versus conventional pseudophakic monovision: patient satisfaction, visual function, and spectacle independence. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(9):1845–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhang F, Sugar A, Jacobsen G, Collins M. Visual function and spectacle independence after cataract surgery: bilateral diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses versus monovision pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(5):853–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. McNeely RN, Pazo E, Spence A, Richoz O, Nesbit AM, Moore TCB, et al. Comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision with combined symmetrical inferonasal near addition versus inferonasal and superotemporal placement of rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(12):1721–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Böhm M, Petermann K, Hemkeppler E, Kohnen T. Defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting IOL designs: diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive, and extended-depth-of-focus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(11):1625–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kohnen T, Rajaraman S. Extended-depth-of-focus technology in intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(2):298–304.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Schallhorn SC, Teenan D, Venter JA, Schallhorn JM, Hettinger KA, Hannan SJ, et al. Monovision LASIK versus presbyopia-correcting IOLs: comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(11):749–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Labiris G, Giarmoukakis A, Patsiamanidi M, Papadopoulos Z, Kozobolis VP. Mini-monovision versus multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(1):53–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wilkins MR, Allan BD, Rubin GS, Findl O, Hollick EJ, Bunce C, et al. Randomized trial of multifocal intraocular lenses versus monovision after bilateral cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(12):2449–2455.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Jin S, Friedman DS, Cao K, Yusufu M, Zhang J, Wang J, et al. Comparison of postoperative visual performance between bifocal and trifocal intraocular lens based on randomized controlled trails: a meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Kohnen T, Titke C, Böhm M. Trifocal intraocular lens implantation to treat visual demands in various distances following lens removal. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;161:71–77.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Steinwender G, Schwarz L, Böhm M, Slavík-Lenčová A, Hemkeppler E, Shajari M, et al. Visual results after implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens in high myopes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(6):680–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Gyory JF, Madár E, Srinivasan S. Implantation of a diffractive-refractive trifocal intraocular lens with centralized diffractive rings: two-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(5):639–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Fernández J, Rodríguez-Vallejo M, Martínez J, Tauste A, Piñero DP. Standard clinical outcomes with a new low addition trifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(4):214–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Böhm M, Hemkeppler E, Herzog M, Schönbrunn S, De Lorenzo N, Petermann K, et al. Comparison of a panfocal and trifocal diffractive intraocular lens after femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(12):1454–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Hogarty DT, Russell DJ, Ward BM, Dewhurst N, Burt P. Comparing visual acuity, range of vision and spectacle independence in the extended range of vision and monofocal intraocular lens. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46(8):854–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C. A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):507–514.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Kohnen T, Böhm M, Hemkeppler E, Schönbrunn S, DeLorenzo N, Petermann K, et al. Visual performance of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens for treatment selection. Eye (Lond). 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Kohnen T, Herzog M, Hemkeppler E, Schönbrunn S, De Lorenzo N, Petermann K, et al. Visual performance of a quadrifocal (trifocal) intraocular lens following removal of the crystalline lens. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;184:52–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Hu JQ, Sarkar R, Sella R, Murphy JD, Afshari NA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of multifocal intraocular lenses compared to monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Bennett RB. The schematic eye. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998. (Bennett and Rabbett’s Clinical Visual Optics)

    Google Scholar 

  85. Nawa Y, Ueda T, Nakatsuka M, Tsuji H, Marutani H, Hara Y, et al. Accommodation obtained per 1.0 mm forward movement of a posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29(11):2069–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Hovanesian JA. Patient-reported outcomes of multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses: analysis of 117 patients 2-10 years after surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2297–304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Marques EF, Castanheira-Dinis A. Clinical performance of a new aspheric dual-optic accommodating intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:2289–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Vilupuru S, Lin L, Pepose JS. Comparison of contrast sensitivity and through focus in small-aperture inlay, accommodating intraocular lens, or multifocal intraocular lens subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(1):150–162.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Dhital A, Spalton DJ, Gala KB. Comparison of near vision, intraocular lens movement, and depth of focus with accommodating and monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(12):1872–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Studeny P, Krizova D, Urminsky J. Clinical experience with the WIOL-CF accommodative bioanalogic intraocular lens: Czech national observational registry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2016;26(3):230–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Pallikaris IG, Portaliou DM, Kymionis GD, Panagopoulou SI, Kounis GA. Outcomes after accommodative bioanalogic intraocular lens implantation. J Refract Surg. 2014;30(6):402–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Alió JL, Simonov AN, Romero D, Angelov A, Angelov Y, van Lawick W, et al. Analysis of accommodative performance of a new accommodative intraocular lens. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(2):78–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Alio JL, Simonov A, Plaza-Puche AB, Angelov A, Angelov Y, van Lawick W, et al. Visual outcomes and accommodative response of the lumina accommodative intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;164:37–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt, Germany

    Thomas Kohnen, Myriam Böhm & Christoph Lwowski

Authors
  1. Thomas Kohnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Myriam Böhm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph Lwowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Kohnen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science, Portland, OR, USA

    Daniel M. Albert

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Joan W. Miller

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Dimitri T. Azar

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Lucy H. Young

Section Editor information

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Dimitri Azar

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA

    Douglas Koch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Kohnen, T., Böhm, M., Lwowski, C. (2022). Pseudophakic Approaches for Addressing Presbyopia. In: Albert, D.M., Miller, J.W., Azar, D.T., Young, L.H. (eds) Albert and Jakobiec's Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42634-7_193

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42634-7_193

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42633-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42634-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation