Skip to main content

Zusammenfassung

Durch die Verbreitung der Phakoemulsifikation gewinnt die Implantation faltbarer Silikonlinsen zunehmend an Bedeutung. Im Rahmen einer prospektiven Studie implantierten wir von Mai bis Dezember 1990 44 Silikon-Disklinsen (Fa. adatomed, Typ 90D; Gruppe 1) und 14 Silikonlinsen herkömmlichen Designs (Fa. AMO, Typ SI 19NB; Gruppe 2).

Nach 3–4 Monaten konnten 39 Patienten in Gruppe 1 und 14 Patienten in Gruppe 2 nachuntersucht werden. Der Astigmatismus betrug 0,71 D und der Snellen-Visus 0,65 in Gruppe 1 bzw. 0,57 D und 0,74 in Gruppe 2. Es fand sich kein signigikanter Unterschied hinsichtlich Astigmatismus, Snellen-Visus und Kontrastsehschärfe (Regan Low Contrast Acuity Charts, 96%, 50%, 25%, 11%). Die Implantation der Silikon-Disklinse war aufgrund ihrer hohen Steifigkeit deutlich schwieriger. In 80% der Fälle verblieben Reste vis- koelastischer Substanzen hinter der IOL.

Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen eine gute Sehleistung mit beiden Silikon-IOLs. Hinsichtlich der Implantationsinstrumente sind jedoch Verbesserungen erforderlich. Inwieweit das hinter der Disklinse verbliebene Healon die Nachstarentwicklung beeinflußt, muß abgewartet werden.

Summary

Small incision cataract surgery necessitates the use of foldable IOLs such as silicone IOLs. We therefore compared two designs, the adatomed 90D (silicone disc IOL, 6 mm optic, diameter 9.6 mm) and the AMO SI19NB (6 mm silicone optic, 2 prolene loops). In a prospective study 44 disc IOLs and 14 AMO IOLs were implanted between May and Dec. 1990. Patients were followed up 1–5 days, 4–6 weeks, 3–4 months and 6–8 months postoperatively. Intraand postoperative complications, refraction, visual acuity and contrast acuity (Regan Low Contrast Acuity Charts, 96%, 50%, 25%, 11%) were determined.

At 3–4 months 39 patients with a disc IOL and 14 patients with an AMO IOL were available. Acuity was 20/31 and 20/27, astigmatism 0.71 D and 0.57 D respectively. Contrast acuity did not differ significantly between the two groups. Due to the stiffness of the material implantation of the disc IOL was more difficult than implantation of the AMO IOL. In 80% of the cases viscoelastics were trapped behind the disc IOL.

Our results suggest a good Visual Performance with both IOLs. Regarding the disc IOL, simplified means of implantation have to be developed. The effect of viscoelastics trapped behind the IOL on capsular opacification remains to be demonstrated.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

Literatur

  1. Allarakhia L, Knoll RL, Lindstrom RL (1987) Soft intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 13:607–620

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Blumenthal M, Assia E, Neumann D (1990) The round capsulorhexis capsulotomy and the rationale for 11.0 mm diamter IOL. Eur J Implant Refract Surg 2:15–19

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brint SF, Ostrick DM, Bryan JE (1991) Keratometric cylinder and visual Performance following phacoemulsification and implantation with silicone small-incision or poly- methylmethacrylate intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 17:32–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Draeger J, Guthoff R, Abramo F, Lang GK (1990) Quantifizierung der Schrumpfungskräfte des Kapselsacks — eine experimentelle Studie. In: Freyler H, Skorpik C, Grasl M (Hrsg) 3. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Intraokularlinsen Implantation. Springer, Wien New York, S 70–75

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Jindra LF, Zemon V (1989) Contrast sensitivity testing: a more complete assessment of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 15:141–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kammann JP, Greite JH, Dornbach G, Harde J (1991) Ergebnisse der klinischen Prüfung mit einer neuen Silikondisklinse. In: Schott K, Jacobi KW, Freyler H (Hrsg) 4. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Intraokularlinsen Implantation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, S 13–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Koch DD (1989) Glare and contrast sensitivity testing in cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 15:158–164

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Koch DD, Samuelson SW, Haft EA, Merin LM (1991) Pupillary responsiveness and its implications for selection of a bifocal intraocular lens. In: Maxwell WA, Nordan LT (eds) Current concepts of multifocal intraocular lenses. Slack Inc, Thorofare, pp 147–152

    Google Scholar 

  9. Storch RL, Bodis-Wollner I (1990) Overview of contrast sensitivity and neuro-ophthal- mic disease. In: Nadler MP, Miller D, Nadler DJ (eds) Glare and contrast sensitivity for clinicians. Springer, New York, pp 84–112 10.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tetz MR, O’Morchoe DJC, Gwin TD, Wilbrandt TH, Solomon KD, Hansen SO, Apple DJ (1988) Posterior capsule opacification and intraocular lens decentration Part II: Experimental findings on a prototype circular intraocular lens design. J Cataract Refract Surg 144:614–623

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1991 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Poepel, B., Knorz, M.C. (1991). Implantation faltbarer Silikonlinsen — Eine vergleichende Studie. In: Wenzel, M., Reim, M., Freyler, H., Hartmann, C. (eds) 5. Kongreß der Deutschsprachigen Gesellschaft für Intraokularlinsen Implantation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76815-6_55

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76815-6_55

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-76816-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-76815-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics