HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wolffsohn, J. S. Articles by Mantry, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wolffsohn, J. S. Articles by Mantry, S.

Objective Accommodative Amplitude and Dynamics with the 1CU Accommodative Intraocular Lens

¹From the School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom; the ²Midland Eye Institute, Birmingham, United Kingdom; the ³Solihull Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and the ⁴Birmingham and Midland Eye Centre, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

PURPOSE. To compare the objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics of eyes implanted with the one-compartment-unit (1CU; HumanOptics AG, Erlangen, Germany) accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) with that measured subjectively.

METHODS. Twenty eyes with a 1CU accommodative IOL implanted were refracted and distance and near acuity measured with a logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) chart. The objective accommodative stimulus–response curve for static targets between 0.17 and 4.00 D accommodative demand was measured with the SRW-5000 (Shin-Nippon Commerce Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and PowerRefractor (PlusOptiX, Nürnberg, Germany) autorefractors. Continuous objective recording of dynamic accommodation was measured with the SRW-5000, with the subject viewing a target moving from 0 to 2.50 D at 0.3 Hz through a Badal lens system. Wavefront aberrometry measures (Zywave; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) were made through undilated pupils. Subjective amplitude of accommodation was measured with the RAF (Royal Air Force accommodation and vergence measurement) rule.

RESULTS. Four months after implantation best-corrected acuity was –0.01 ± 0.16 logMAR at distance and 0.60 ± 0.09 logMAR at near. Objectively, the static amplitude of accommodation was 0.72 ± 0.38 D. The average dynamic amplitude of accommodation was 0.71 ± 0.47 D, with a lag behind the target of 0.50 ± 0.48 seconds. Aberrometry showed a decrease in power of the lens–eye combination from the center to the periphery in all subjects (on average, –0.38 ± 0.28 D/mm). Subjective amplitude of accommodation was 2.24 ± 0.42 D. Two years after 1CU implantation, refractive error and distance visual acuity remained relatively stable, but near visual acuity, and the subjective and objective amplitudes of accommodation decreased.

CONCLUSIONS. The objective accommodating effects of the 1CU lens appear to be limited, although patients are able to track a moving target. Subjective and objective accommodation was reduced at the 2-year follow-up. The greater subjective amplitude of accommodation is likely to result from the eye’s depth of focus of and the aspheric nature of the IOL.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Minerva BMJ, April 1, 2006; 332(7544): 802 - 802. [Full Text] [PDF]