Advertisement

Contrast sensitivity with bifocal intraocular lenses is halved, as measured with the Freiburg Vision Test (FrACT), yet patients are happy

  • Alexandra Anton
  • Daniel Böhringer
  • Michael Bach
  • Thomas Reinhard
  • Florian Birnbaum
Refractive Surgery

Abstract

Background

As the desire for spectacle independence following cataract surgery grows, so does interest in the implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses. However, glare phenomena, reduced intermediate vision and loss of image quality are known problems associated with this new generation of lenses. We compared the functional results achieved by the implantation of the diffractive-refractive Acri.LISA 366D lenses to those achieved from implanting monofocal Acri.Smart 46LC lenses.

Methods

In a retrospective data analysis we followed ten patients who received bifocal intraocular lenses (Acri.LISA 366D) and ten patients who received monofocal intraocular lenses (Acri.Smart 46LC). Lenses were always implanted in both eyes. In each group we assessed visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with the Freiburg Vison Test (FrACT) at multiple distances ranging from 0.5 to 5 m. Additionally, we assessed near vision with the Birkhaeuser charts. We also evaluated photopic phenomena and patient satisfaction using a standardised questionnaire. One patient in the Acri.LISA group and six patients in the control group missed the recommended follow-up visits.

Results

We found good uncorrected distance and near visual acuity. Only three of nine patients wore glasses occasionally. Although their contrast sensitivity decreased by a factor of two compared to the control group, patients did not complain about visual disturbances. Patient satisfaction was predominantly high following Acri.LISA 366D implantation.

Conclusions

With the Acri.LISA 366D, patients demonstrate excellent near and distance vision, albeit with reduced contrast sensitivity. Acri Lisa is a viable option in patients that do not want to depend on spectacles.

Keywords

Multifocal intraocular lens Visual acuity Contrast sensitivity 

Notes

Financial support

The bifocal intraocular lenses were donated by Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany.

Financial disclosure

None of the authors has any proprietary or financial interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Findl O, Leydolt C (2007) Meta-analysis of accommodating intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:522–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holzer MP, Rabsilber TM, Auffarth GU (2006) Presbyopia correction using intraocular lenses. Ophthalmologe 103:661–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach M (1996) The Freiburg Visual Acuity test–automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach M (2007) The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:965–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurtenbach A, Langrová H, Messias A, Zrenner E, Jägle H (2013) A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity. Doc Ophthalmol 126:45–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loumann Knudsen L (2003) Visual acuity testing in diabetic subjects: the decimal progression chart versus the Freiburg visual acuity test. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 241:615–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bach M, Lachenmayr B, Schiefer U (2011) Prüfung des Kontrast- oder Dämmerungssehens. Ophthalmologe 108:1195–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mäntyjärvi M, Laitinen T (2001) Normal values for the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:261–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arditi A (2005) Improving the design of the letter contrast sensitivity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:2225–2229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R Development Core Team (2006) R: A language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ravalico G, Parentin F, Baccara F (1999) Effect of astigmatism on multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:804–807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cagenello R, Arditi A, Halpern DL (1993) Binocular enhancement of visual acuity. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 10:1841–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaymak H, Mester U (2007) First results with a new aberration correcting bifocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmologe 104:1046–1051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liekfeld A, Walkow T, Anders N, Pham DT, Wollensak J (1998) Prospective comparison of 2 multi-focal lens models. Ophthalmologe 95:253–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabin J (1995) Two eyes are better than one: binocular enhancement in the contrast domain. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 15:45–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shoji N, Shimizu K (2002) Binocular function of the patient with the refractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:1012–1017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Señaris A, Montés-Micó R (2007) Prospective study of the Acri.LISA bifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1930–1935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernández-Vega L, Alfonso JF, Baamonde B, Madrid-Costa D, Montés-Micó R, Lozano J (2009) Visual and refractive outcomes in hyperopic pseudophakic patients implanted with the Acri.LISA 366D multifocal intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol 148:214–220.e1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fernandez-Vega L, Madrid-Costa D, Alfonso JF, Poo-Lopez A, Montes-Micò R (2010) Bilateral implantation of the Acri.LISA bifocal intraocular lens in myopic eyes. Eur J Ophthalmol 20:83–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R, Cerviño A, Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L (2008) Contrast sensitivity after refractive lens exchange with diffractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation in hyperopic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:2043–2048PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mesci C, Erbil H, Ozdoker L, Karakurt Y, Bilge AD (2010) Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function after accommodative and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Eur J Ophthalmol 20:90–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blaylock JF, Si Z, Vickers C (2006) Visual and refractive status at different focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1464–1473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra Anton
    • 1
  • Daniel Böhringer
    • 1
  • Michael Bach
    • 1
  • Thomas Reinhard
    • 1
  • Florian Birnbaum
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Eye CenterUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Eye HospitalKlinikum Bremen-Mitte GmbHBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations