Comparison of contrast sensitivity between posterior chamber lenses of silicone and PMMA material

  • Christian Skorpik
  • Irene Gottlob
  • Herbert Weghaupt
Clinical Investigations
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Seventeen patients received a posterior chamber lens of PMMA in one eye and a silicone lens (Staar Surgical Co.) in the other. Contrast sensitivity was examined in both eyes in order to detect differences with respect to the material used for lens implantation. An attempt was made to exclude any changes in the eyes that were not due to lens implantation and that might possibly have an influence on the result. A pairedT-test was performed for each spatial frequency. No statistically significant difference was found between the two materials with regard to contrast sensitivity.

Keywords

Public Health Silicone PMMA Spatial Frequency Contrast Sensitivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arundale K (1978) An investigation into the variation of human contrast sensitivity with age and ocular pathology. Br J Ophthalmol 62:213–215Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carney LG (1985) Visual deficits remaining after penetrating keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26 [Suppl]:148Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hammer HM, Yap M, Weatherill JR (1986) Visual performance in pseudophakia with standard and ultraviolet-absorbing intraocular lenses: a preliminary report. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 105: 441–446Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hess RF, Carney LG (1979) Vision through an abnormal cornea: a pilot study of the relationship between visual loss from corneal distortion, corneal edema, keratoconus and some allied corneal pathology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18:476–483Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hess RF, Garner LF (1977) The effect of corneal edema on visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 16:5–13Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hess RF, Woo GC (1978) Vision through cataracts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 17:428–435Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hess RF, Woo GC, White PD (1985) Contrast attenuation characteristics of iris-clipped intraocular lens implants in situ. Br J Ophthalmol 69:129–135Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howe JW, Mitchell KW, Mahabaleswara M, Abdel-Khalek MN (1986) Visual evoked potential latency and contrast sensitivity in patients with posterior chamber intraocular lens implants. Br J Ophthalmol 70:890–894Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jaffe NS (1986) Glare and contrast: indications for cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 12:372–375Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koch DD, Jardeleza TL, Emery JM, Franklin D (1986) Glare following posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 12:480–484Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kulnig W, Gnad HD (1987) Kontrast- und Auflösungsmessung bei experimentell induzierten YAG-Laserschaden an Intraokularlinsen. Spektrum Augenheilkd 1:27–29Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kulnig W, Menapace R, Skorpik C, Juchem M (1987) Optical resolution of silicone and polymethylmethacrylate intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 13:635–639Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lachenmayr B, Pateras N (1987) Dämmerungssehvermögen und Blendempfindlichkeit bei Pseudophaken. Fortschr Ophthalmol 84:173–179Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    LeClaire J, Nadler MP, Weiss S, Miller D (1982) A new glare tester for clinical testing; results comparing normal subjects and variously corrected aphakic patients. Arch Ophthalmol 100:153–158Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mannis MJ, Zadnik K, Johnson CA (1984) The effect of penetrating keratoplasty on contrast sensitivity in keratoconus. Arch Ophthalmol 102:1513–1516Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mannis MJ, Zadnik K, Johnson CA, Adams C (1987) Contrast sensitivity after penetrating keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 105:1220–1225Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller D, Benedek G (1973) Intraocular light scattering. Theory and clinical application. Thomas, Springfield, IllGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nadler DJ, Jaffe NS, Clayman HM, Jaffe MS et al. (1984) Glare disability in eyes with intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 97:43–47Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Owsley C, Sloane ME (1987) Contrast sensitivity, acuity, and the perception of ‘real-world’ targets. Br J Ophthalmol 71:791–796Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Owsley C, Gardner T, Sekuler R, Lieberman H (1985) Role of the crystalline lens in the spatial vision loss of the elderly. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26:1165–1170Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skorpik C, Menapace R, Gnad HD, Grasl M, Scheidel W (1987) Evaluation of 50 silicone posterior chamber lens implantations. J Cataract Refract Surg 13: 640–643Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skorpik C, Menapace R, Gnad HD, Hienert I, Scheidel W, Grasl M (1987) Implantation von Silikon-Hinterkammerlinsen: Ergebnisse und Komplikationen. Spektrum Augenheilkd 1:243–247Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolf E (1960) Glare and age. Arch Ophthalmol 64:502–514Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zadnik K, Mannis MJ, Johnson CA (1984) An analysis of contrast sensitivity in identical twins with keratoconus. Cornea 3:99–103Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Skorpik
    • 1
  • Irene Gottlob
    • 1
  • Herbert Weghaupt
    • 1
  1. 1.1. Universitäts-AugenklinikWienAustria

Personalised recommendations