Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pseudoaccommodative and Accommodative IOLs

  • Chapter
Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Part of the book series: Essentials in Ophthalmology ((ESSENTIALS))

  • 1064 Accesses

10.10 Conclusions

Thanks to the success of the excimer laser, refractive surgery has increased in popularity throughout the world. Corneal refractive surgery, however, has its limitations. Patients with severe degrees of myopia and hyperopia are poor candidates for excimer laser surgery, and presbyopes must contend with reading glasses, monovision or multifocal ablation to address their near visual needs. Phakic intraocular lenses are restricted to patients with deep anterior chambers, which limits their utility in hyperopes. Additionally, patients in the presbyopic age range or those developing early cataracts are best served with the one step process of refractive lens exchange. The rapid recovery and astigmatically neutral incisions currently utilized for modern cataract surgery have allowed this procedure to be used with greater predictability for refractive lens exchange in patients who are otherwise not suffering from visually significant cataracts.

Successful integration of refractive lens exchange into the general ophthalmologist’s practice is fairly straight forward since most surgeons are currently performing small incision cataract surgery for their cataract patients. Although any style of foldable IOL can be used for lens exchanges, multifocal and accommodative IOLs currently offer the best option for addressing both the elimination of refractive errors and presbyopia. Refractive lens exchange with multifocal or accommodative lens technology is not for every patient considering refractive surgery, but does offer substantial benefits, especially in presbyopic hyperopes, presbyopes, and patients with borderline or soon to be clinically significant cataracts who are requesting refractive surgery.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arens B, Freudenthaler N, Quentin CD. Binocular function after bilateral implantation of monofocal and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999;25:399–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Artal P, Berrio E, Guirao A, Piers P. Contribution of the cornea and internal surfaces to the change of ocular aberrations with age. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2002;19:137–143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellucci R, Scialdone A, Buratto L, Morselli S, Chierego C, Criscuoli A, Moretti G, Piers P. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity comparison between Tecnis and AcrySof SA60AT intraocular lenses: a multicenter randomized study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31(4):712–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brydon KW, Tokarewicz AC, Nichols BD. AMO Array multifocal lens versus monofocal correction in cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:96–100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Coleman DJ. On the hydraulic suspension theory of accommodation. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1986;84:846–868.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dick HB. Accommodative intraocular lenses: current status. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2005;16(1):8–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Doane, J. C&C CrystaLens AT-45 accommodating intraocular lens. Presented at the XX Congress of the ESCRS, Nice, September, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  8. El Hage SG, Le Grand Y. Physiological optics, vol 13. Springer Series in Optical Sciences. New York Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 1980;64–66.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Findl O. The Crystalens [abstract]. XXII Congress of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons, Paris, 18–22 September 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fine IH. Design and early clinical studies of the AMO Array multifocal IOL. In: Maxwell A, Nordan LT, eds. Current concepts of multifocal intraocular lenses. Thorofare, NJ: Slack, 1991;105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Haring G, Gronemeyer A, Hedderich J, et al. Stereoacuity and aniseikonia after unilateral and bilateral implantation of the Array refractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999;25:1151–1156.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Haring G, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, et al. Subjective photic phenomena with refractive multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses. Results of a multicenter questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:245–249.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Holladay JT, Piers PA, Koranyi G, van der Mooren M, Norrby S. A new intraocular lens design to reduce spherical aberration of pseudophakic eyes. J Refract Surg 2002;18:683–691.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Rulings/downloads/ CMSR0501.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  15. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf4/p040020b.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kamlesh S, Dadeya S, Kaushik S. Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. Can J Ophthalmol 2001;36:197–201.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McDonald JE, El-Moatassem Kotb AM, Decker BB. Effect of brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.2% on pupil size in normal eyes under different luminance conditions. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:560–564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McLeod SD, Portney V, Ting A. A dual optic accommodating foldable intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:1083–1085.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Marchini G, Pedrotti E, Sartori P, Tosi R. Ultrasound biomicroscopic changes during accommodation in eyes with accommodating intraocular lenses: pilot study and hypothesis for the mechanism of accommodation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30(12):2476–2482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Masket S, et al. Cataract in the adult eye. Preferred practice pattern. American Academy of Ophthalmology 2001;12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mester U, Dillinger P, Anterist N. Impact of a modified optic design on visual function: clinical comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29(4):652–660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nishi O, Nishi K. Accommodation amplitude after lens refilling with injectable silicone by sealing the capsule with a plug in primates. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116(10):1358–1361.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS. Refractive lens exchange with the Array multifocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:421–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Piers PA. Initial clinical experience with an anterior surface modified prolate intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2002;18:692–696.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Coffman PG, Brown LK. Immersion A scan compared to partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:239–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Packer M, Brown LK, Hoffman RS, Fine IH. Intraocular lens power calculation following incisional or thermal keratorefractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:1430–1434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Percival SPB, Setty SS. Prospectively randomized trial comparing the pseudoaccommodation of the AMO Array multifocal lens and a monofocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993;19:26–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pieh S, Weghaupt H, Skorpik C. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability with diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998;24:659–662.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Pieh S, Hanselmayer G, Lackner B, et al. Tritan colour contrast sensitivity function in refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:811–815.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pieh S, Marvan P, Lackner B, et al. Quantitative performance of bifocal and multifocal intraocular lenses in a model eye. Point spread function in multifocal intraocular lenses. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:23–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rohaly AM, Owsley C. Modeling the contrast-sensitivity functions of older adults. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 1993;10(7):1591–1599.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Schmidbauer JM, Vargas LG, Apple DJ, et al. Evaluation of neodymium: yttrium-aluminumgarnet capsulotomies in eyes implanted with AcrySof intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2002;109:1421–1426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schmitz S, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, et al. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability by halogen light after monofocal and multifocal lens implantation. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:1109–1112.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Shoji N, Shimizu K. Binocular function of the patient with the refractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:1012–1017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Stachs O, Schneider H, Stave J, Guthoff R. Potentially accommodating intraocular lenses-an in vitro and in vivo study using three-dimensional high-frequency ultrasound. J Refract Surg 2005;21(1):37–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Steinert RF, Post CT, Brint SF, et al. A progressive, randomized, double-masked comparison of a zonal-progressive multifocal intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 1992;99:853–861.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Steinert RF, Aker BL, Trentacost DJ, et al. A prospective study of the AMO Array zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 1999;106:1243–1255.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Thornton SP. Lens implantation with restored accommodation. Curr Can Ophthalmic Pract 1986;2:60.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Vargas LG, Auffarth GU, Becker KA, et al. Performance of the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens in relation to capsulorhexis size. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31(2) 363–368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang L, Dai E, Koch DD, Nathoo A. Optical aberrations of the human anterior cornea. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29(8):1514–1521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1550 Oak Street, Suite 5, Eugene, OR, 97401-7700, USA

    Mark Packer MD, I. Howard Fine MD & Richard S. Hoffman MD

  2. Universitäts-Augenklinik, In der Schornau 23-25, 44892, Bochum

    H. Burkhard Dick (Prof. Dr and Direktor)

Authors
  1. Mark Packer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Howard Fine MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard S. Hoffman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Burkhard Dick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Augenklinik der Johann Wolfgang, Goethe-Universität, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany

    Thomas Kohnen (Prof. Dr.) (Prof. Dr.)

  2. Department of Opthalmology, 6565 Fannin NC 205, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Douglas D. Koch MD (Prof.) (Prof.)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Packer, M., Howard Fine, I., Hoffman, R.S., Burkhard Dick, H. (2006). Pseudoaccommodative and Accommodative IOLs. In: Kohnen, T., Koch, D.D. (eds) Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Essentials in Ophthalmology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-30796-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-30796-6_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-30795-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-30796-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation