[First results of implantation of a new, potentially accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens]

The efficacy of accommodative versus monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether accommodative intraocular lenses (AC-IOLs) are superior for cataract patients compared with monofocal IOLs (MF-IOLs).

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched through in August 2018 for AC-IOLs versus MF-IOLs in cataract patients. Studies were pooled under either fixed-effects model or random-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), or standard mean difference (SMD) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) was chosen as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), pilocarpine-induced IOL shift, contrast sensitivity, and spectacle independence.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies, involving a total of 1764 eyes, were included. Our results revealed that AC-IOLs improved DCNVA (SMD = -1.84, 95% CI = -2.56 to -1.11) and were associated with significantly greater anterior lens shift than MF-IOLs (WMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.23). Furthermore, spectacle independence was significantly better with AC-IOLs than with MF-IOLs (RR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.06-8.89). However, there was no significant difference in CDVA and contrast sensitivity between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirmed that AC-IOLs can provide cataract patients with DCNVA and result in more high levels of spectacle independence than MF-IOLs. Further studies with larger data set and well-designed models are required to validate our findings.

Longterm results of 1 CU® accommodative intraocular lens implantation: 2-year follow-up study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the longterm efficacy of 1 CU accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) to restore near visual performance.

METHODS

This prospective study comprised 14 eyes previously included in a 6-month, case-control clinical trial, undergoing phacoemulsification and implantation of a 1 CU accommodative IOL. The main outcome measures were subjective refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), best corrected distance VA (BCDVA), distance-corrected near VA (DCNVA), best corrected near VA (BCNVA), and subjective amplitude of accommodation (AA). In addition, anterior and posterior capsule opacification were assessed. Patients were examined over a 2-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Distance and near visual performance worsened after 6 months. Uncorrected DVA and BCDVA were 0.8 +/- 2.1 and 1.0 +/- 0.8 at 6 months and 0.4 +/- 0.1 and 0.6 +/- 0.1 at 1 year, respectively (p = 0.001). Distance-corrected NVA and BCNVA were 3.7 +/- 2.1 Jaeger (J) and 1.0 +/- 0.7 J at 6 months and 8.1 +/- 0.7 J and 1.5 +/- 0.5 J at 1 year, respectively (p = 0.001). Anterior and posterior capsule opacification were present, respectively, in 28% and 21% of patients at 6 months and in 100% of patients at 1 and 2 years (p < 0.001). After Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy (performed in 100% of patients), UCDVA and BCDVA increased to 0.7 +/- 0.2 (p = 0.007) and 1.0 +/- 0.1 (p = 0.001), respectively, at 2 years. Distance-corrected NVA improved to 7.3 +/- 0.5 J (p = 0.006). Mean AA was 1.9 +/- 0.8 D at 6 months, 0.3 +/- 0.2 D (p = 0.004) at 1 year and 0.3 +/- 0.2 D at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients implanted with 1 CU IOLs lost their accommodation capacities with time because of the high incidence and degree of anterior and posterior capsule opacification. The accommodative lens material and design may have played a role in capsule fibrosis.

Meta-analysis of accommodating intraocular lenses

Accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs) based on the concept of optic shift were introduced to restore accommodation after cataract surgery. Currently, 3 types of accommodating IOLs are commercially available: 1CU (HumanOptics), BioComFold (Morcher), and AT-45 Crystalens (eyeonics, Inc.). We present a meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed data from studies of these IOLs that use optic-shift measurements and visual acuity as the main outcome measures. In the 6 randomized controlled studies, 5 of which studied the 1CU IOL, the visual acuity results showed moderate to no improvement in near visual acuity compared with control IOLs and a statistically significant but small and inter-patient variable anterior shift of the IOL optic after pilocarpine stimulation. More clinical trials with randomized, controlled, and patient- and examiner-masked study designs that follow the guidelines of evidence-based medicine are needed to prove a benefit of accommodating focus-shift IOLs.

Potentially Accommodating 1CU Intraocular Lens: 1-year Results in 553 Eyes and Literature Review

PURPOSE

To investigate the advantages, clinical outcomes, and safety after implantation of the 1CU (HumanOptics AG) optic shift intraocular lens (IOL) in comparison with a conventional monofocal IOL.

METHODS

In a prospective non-randomized study, 553 eyes implanted with the 1CU IOL were examined. In a control group, a monofocal posterior chamber IOL (MCTE, Dr Schmidt) was implanted in 219 eyes. Follow-up was performed at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The clinical effect for near visual acuity was evaluated by subjective measurements using an accommodometer, defocusing curve, and Nieden charts.

RESULTS

No significant differences were noted in distance best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) between groups. Average near visual acuity with distance BSCVA for the 1CU was 0.41 and 0.35 for the control group. The difference in the accommodation response between both groups measured with the accommodometer was 11 cm (P < .01). The refraction tolerance for the 1CU was 0.25 D whereas the MCTE revealed no refraction tolerance (P < .01). Decentration and tilting of the 1CU resulted in explantation of three IOLs.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1CU indicates a minor statistical advantage of half a reading step towards monofocal IOLs measured with subjective methods in near point, defocusing curve, and near visual acuity with distance BSCVA. This could be due to pseudophakic accommodation by the optic shift mechanism or a result of additional pseudophakic pseudoaccommodation. The accommodative effect of the 1CU differed from patient to patient and was not predictable.

Determination of pseudophakic accommodation with translation lenses using Purkinje image analysis

PURPOSE

To determine pseudophakic accommodation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens (translation lens) using Purkinje image analysis and linear matrix methods in the paraxial space.

METHODS

A 2 x 2 system matrix was defined for each Purkinje image I to IV using refraction, translation and mirror matrices. Image size (m) and axial image position (z) was determined as an example for an off-axis object (a 0.2 m off-axis object located 0.5 m in front of the cornea.). First, our method was applied to the phakic relaxed (emmetropic) and accommodated (6.96 D) Le Grand eye. Secondly, for demonstration of the applicability of the calculation scheme to the pseudophakic eye, we provide a clinical example where we determine the accommodation amplitude of the translation lens (1 CU, HumanOptics, Erlangen, Germany) from photographed Purkinje images in the relaxed and accommodated state. From the biometric data: axial length 23.7 mm, corneal power 43.5, corneal thickness 550 microns, implanted intraocular lens (IOL) with a refractive power of 20.5 D (shape equi-biconvex, refractive index 1.46), and refractive indices of the cornea, aqueous and vitreous from the Le Grand model eye, we calculated the refractive state and the sizes of Purkinje images I and III initiated from two off-axis light sources.

RESULTS

For the Le Grand model eye, Purkinje image II (z/m = 3.5850 mm/0.0064) is slightly smaller than and directly in front of image I (z/m = 3.8698 mm/0.0077). Purkinje image III (z/m = 10.6097 mm/0.0151) is nearly double the size of image I and during accommodation it moves from the vitreous into the crystalline lens. Purkinje IV (z/m = 4.3244 mm/-0.0059) is inverted, three quarters the size of image I, lies in the crystalline lens and moves slightly towards the retina. For the pseudophakic eye, pseudophakic accommodation of 1.10 D was calculated from the proportion of distances between both Purkinje images I and III in the relaxed (3.04) and accommodated (2.75) state, which is in contrast to the total subjective accommodation of 2.875 D evaluated with an accommodometer.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a straightforward mathematical strategy for calculation of the Purkinje images I-IV. Results of our model calculation resemble the values provided by Le Grand. In addition, this approach yields a simple en bloc scheme for determination of pseudophakic accommodation in pseudophakic eyes with accommodative lenses (translation lenses) using Purkinje image photography.

Accommodative intraocular lenses: current status

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The possibility of using a monofocal IOL with accommodative ability allows refractive cataract surgery with a clearly decreased potential of photic phenomena. Three IOLs of different designs and materials have demonstrated accommodative ability, but the degree of accommodative amplitude has been reported to different extents and variabilities. The plate-haptic CrystaLens has a hinged design that might permit forward movement of the optic as a result of pressure changes in the vitreous cavity. The 1CU has modified haptics that bend in the bag as the lens capsule contracts, which are supposed to cause anterior displacement of the lens optic. With the dual-optic one-piece Synchrony, springlike haptics separate a high-plus anterior lens from a posterior minus lens. With accommodative effort, the capsular bag expands and the springs express kinetic energy, which might allow the optics to separate as the anterior lens moves forward.

RECENT FINDINGS

This article seeks to clarify and distinguish the concepts of true accommodation and pseudo accommodation. Current designs of accommodative IOLs are supposed to work by the focus-shift principle to allow true pseudophakic accommodation. Studies that biometrically assessed optic shift found no or only low amplitudes of forward movement. The amount of forward movement, if present, was highly variable between patients. To date, most studies present psychophysical data for the proof of concept, which alone seems insufficient. Capsule bag performance and posterior capsule opacification with accommodative IOLs seem worse than those with standard intraocular lenses.

SUMMARY

The potential clinical benefits of accommodative IOL technology for both cataract patients and refractive patients may place accommodative IOLs in a competitive position with multifocal IOL technology.

Optical formula to predict outcomes after implantation of accommodating intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To analyze the effect of optical parameters on the outcomes of accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in cataract surgery.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, KULeuven University, Leuven, Belgium.

METHODS

Thin-lens approximation optics were used to obtain a formula containing the following variables: axial length (AL), mean keratometry (Km), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and presumed anterior shift of the IOL (dACD). The influence of these variables was separately analyzed.

RESULTS

The accommodative amplitude (AA) decreased with a longer AL and higher Km. The AA varied between -5.4 diopters (D) and 0.0 D in eyes with an AL between 20.0 mm and 28.0 mm and a Km between 38.0 D and 52.00 D. The dACD was also a significant factor influencing the AA. The ACD had less influence on the AA.

CONCLUSION

The obtained formula could guide selection of candidates for accommodating IOL implantation.

Pseudophakic accommodation with translation lenses - dual optic vs mono optic

PURPOSE

To investigate the pseudophakic accommodation effect in dual and mono optic translation accommodative intraocular lenses (AIOL) using linear matrix methods in the paraxial space.

METHODS

Dual (anterior optic of power +32 D linked to a compensatory posterior optic of negative power) and mono lens power was determined in the non-accommodated state using linear geometric optics based on the Gullstrand model eye. The position of the AIOL was calculated from a regression formula. Pseudophakic accommodation was assessed with three systems: (1) forward shift of the mono optic lens, (2) anterior translation of the anterior optic in the dual optic lens system with an unchanged position of the posterior minus lens and (3) symmetrical anterior and posterior translation of the anterior and posterior lens. The Gullstrand model eye was modified by changing the axial length (and proportionally changing the phakic anterior chamber depth) to investigate the accommodative effect in myopic and hyperopic eyes.

RESULTS

The dual optic lens system (2) yields a nearly constant accommodation amplitude of 2.4-2.5 D mm(-1) movement over the total range of axial lengths. The mono optic lens (1) provides a higher accommodative effect only in extremely short eyes (high refractive power of the lens), whereas for normal eyes (1.4-1.5 D mm(-1) movement) and for long (myopic) eyes the accommodative effect is much less than the dual optic lens. The dual optic lens system under condition (3) yields less accommodation amplitude compared with the dual optic system under condition (2) over the total range of axial length but provides higher accommodation amplitude compared with the mono optic lens system (1) with axial lengths greater than 22.3 mm (lens power 25.5 D). In the accommodated state, with lens translation of 1 mm, the absolute value of the lateral magnification increases with the refractive power of the mono optic lens (1) and decreases in both dual optic lens systems (under conditions 2 and 3).

CONCLUSIONS

A mathematical strategy is presented for calculation of the accommodative effect of mono-optic and dual optic AIOL. The dual optic lens yielded a nearly constant accommodation amplitude of about 2.4-2.5 D mm(-1) translation, whereas the mono optic lens yielded an accommodative response of <2 D mm(-1) translation in long myopic or normal eyes. Only in extremely short eyes is the accommodative amplitude of the mono-optic lens higher than the dual optic lens.

A mathematical model of factors that influence the performance of accommodative intraocular lenses

In this work a mathematical model of capsule movement during pseudophakic accommodation is described to allow identification and evaluation of factors that may explain the variation in effect of accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) between patients. The model assumes that increasing vitreous pressure pushes the lens capsule forward as a circular diaphragm and that this movement is from a fixed fulcrum. With an IOL in situ, the capsule is taken to have a non-uniform thickness due to the presence of the anterior capsulorhexis. The model assumes a uniform capsular elasticity and ignores contributions from cellular elements such as posterior capsule opacification. Using our model and a regression formula to calculate capsular bag size, taking into account axial length and keratometry values, we are able to predict accommodative effect in individual patients. By simple geometry we have developed a mathematical model to identify variables that are important in pseudophakic accommodation. It provides the basis for the development of a more complex model that would address the movement of a lens taking into account the influence of the zonular system during accommodation.

Comparison of 6-month results of implantation of the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens with conventional intraocular lenses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical results of implantation of the new 1CU accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) in cataract patients and to compare results with those of conventional IOLs.

DESIGN

Nonrandomized comparative trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty eyes of 20 patients (mean age = 65.8+/-13.3 years) in the 1CU group and 20 eyes of 20 patients (mean age = 67.4+/-11.6 years) in the control group.

METHODS

All patients underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. The 1CU accommodative lens was used in 20 eyes, and conventional IOLs (polymethyl methacrylate, hydrophilic or hydrophobic acrylate) were used in the control group. Patients were observed prospectively, and 6-month data were analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Accommodative ranges determined by 3 different methods (near point, defocusing, and retinoscopy). Secondary outcome measures were (1) increase of anterior chamber depth after topical application of 1% cyclopentolate eyedrops and (2) distance-corrected near visual acuity with Birkhäuser reading charts at 35 cm.

RESULTS

We observed a higher accommodative range with all 3 methods (mean = 1.83+/-0.49 vs. 1.16+/-0.27 diopters [D] [near point], 1.85+/-0.43 vs. 0.64+/-0.21 D [defocusing], and 0.98+/-0.55 vs. 0.17+/-0.22 D [retinoscopy]), a larger increase of anterior chamber depth after cyclopentolate eyedrops (mean = 0.42+/-0.18 vs. 0.11+/-0.06 mm), and better distance-corrected near visual acuity (median = 0.4 vs. 0.2) in the 1CU group relative to the control group. All differences between the 2 groups were statistically highly significant (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, the 1CU accommodative IOL showed increased accommodative range and better near visual acuity than a control group with conventional IOLs. Further research is necessary to confirm these results in masked, randomized, prospective studies and to confirm further the accommodative power of this group of new IOLs.

Difficult lens power calculations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although cataract extraction seems to be feasible without major technical obstacles, the surgical technique has changed completely, and patients are no longer satisfied with good spectacle-corrected vision but anticipate complete visual rehabilitation after cataract surgery, without correction. To fulfill this desire, toric or accommodative intraocular lenses are of increasing popularity, and the intraocular lens power calculation after keratorefractive surgery has been improved.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review article, we provide an overview of different mathematical strategies of calculating the intraocular lens power with standard formulas and with new algorithms, such as paraxial or numeric ray-tracing. These enhanced techniques may improve the validity of lens power calculation due to reduction of the prediction error, especially in cases with high or excessive corneal astigmatism and after refractive laser surgery. Furthermore, a new calculation scheme for the determination of bitoric eikonic intraocular lenses allows a distortion-free imaging in astigmatic eyes. The biometric determinants for the different formulas and calculation schemes are discussed in detail.

SUMMARY

In difficult cases, standard calculation schemes are overemployed and new mathematical algorithms are necessary to adequately address these problems. Ray-tracing algorithms and other complex mathematical computation schemes are of increasing interest and will more and more replace conventional calculation formulas for determination of intraocular lens power.

Understanding the accommodating intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To review current accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) designs and introduce a new design consisting of a plus lens and a minus lens.

SETTING

Cornea Consultants of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

METHODS

Computer simulation studies of a model eye calculated the pseudoaccommodation range with different powers of 1 IOL or of 2 IOLs acting as a doublet.

RESULTS

The doublet consisting of a convex (plus) lens and a concave (minus) lens gave a greater range of power change than a single convex lens or a doublet consisting of 2 convex lenses. The greater range of power results from the plus lens moving forward.

CONCLUSION

The results show that an IOL design consisting of positive and negative lenses that move closer or farther from each other offers a greater range of pseudoaccommodation than other designs.

Stability of refraction, accommodation, and lens position after implantation of the 1CU accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To investigate stability of refraction, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and accommodation up to 12 months after implantation of the 1CU accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens (PC IOL).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 15 eyes of 15 patients (mean age 62.2 years +/- 13.4 [SD] [range 44 to 86 years]) had phacoemulsification and PC IOL implantation. Distance refraction, accommodative range measured by the near point with an accommodometer, ACD measured with the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec), and near visual acuity with best distance correction (Birkhäuser charts at 35 cm) were determined after 3, 6, and 12 months and analyzed for signs of systematic changes.

RESULTS

After 3, 6, and 12 months, the mean distance refraction was -0.28 +/- 0.54 diopters (D), -0.29 +/- 0.52 D, and -0.21 +/- 0.54 D, respectively; the mean accommodative range, 1.93 +/- 0.47 D, 1.85 +/- 0.62 D, and 2.02 +/- 0.38 D, respectively; the mean ACD without pharmacological induction of ciliary muscle contraction, 4.40 +/- 0.44 mm, 4.35 +/- 0.50 mm, 4.25 +/- 0.53 mm, respectively; and the mean near visual acuity with best distance correction, 0.41 +/- 0.15, 0.37 +/- 0.12, and 0.39 +/- 0.11, respectively. There were no statistically significant changes in any measurement during the follow-up (P>.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Refraction, ACD, and accommodative range remained stable without indication of a systemic trend toward myopia, hyperopia, PC IOL dislocation, or regression of accommodative properties. The 1CU accommodating PC IOL provided stable refraction, accommodation, and PC IOL position for up to 1 year.

Theoretical and Measured Pseudophakic Accommodation After Implantation of a New Accommodative Posterior Chamber Intraocular Lens

OBJECTIVE

To analyze different techniques of measuring accommodation after implantation of a new accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens (PCIOL).

METHODS

In this comparative, nonrandomized interventional study, we analyzed 15 eyes of 15 patients (aged 44-84 years) at 6 months after cataract surgery and PCIOL implantation (Akkommodative 1CU; HumanOptics AG, Erlangen, Germany) and compared these results with those of an age-matched control group (n = 15). We used the following methods to measure accommodation: dynamic measurement with objective (videorefractometry [PowerRefractor; PlusOptix, Erlangen] and streak retinoscopy) and subjective (subjective near point [push-up test and accommodometer] and defocusing) techniques, as well as static measurement of the change in anterior chamber depth (ACD) using the IOLMaster (Zeiss, Jena, Germany) after pharmacological stimulation using 2% pilocarpine eye drops.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Theoretical accommodation calculated from the forward shift of the lens optics (decrease of ACD) using paraxial geometrical optics and measured accommodation amplitude.

RESULTS

Accommodation amplitude (mean +/- SD; range; median) results after 6 months in the study and control groups were as follows: 1.00 +/- 0.44; 0.75-2.13; 1 diopter (D); and 0.35 +/- 0.26; 0.10-0.65; 0.25 D, respectively, using the PowerRefractor; 0.99 +/- 0.48; 0.13-2.00; 0.88 D; and 0.24 +/- 0.21; -0.13-0.75; 0.25 D, respectively, using retinoscopy; 1.6 +/- 0.55; 0.50-2.56; 1.7 D; and 0.42 +/- 0.25; 0.00-0.75; 0.50 D, respectively, using subjective near point; and 1.46 +/- 0.53; 1.00-2.50; 1.75 D; and 0.55 +/- 0.33; 0.25-0.87; 0.50 D, respectively, using defocusing. Anterior chamber depth decreased in the study and control groups as follows: 0.78 +/- 0.12; 0.49-1.91; 0.65 mm; and 0.16 +/- 0.09; 0.00-0.34; 0.18 mm, respectively, after applying 2% pilocarpine eyedrops, indicating an accommodation of 1.16 +/- 0.22; 0.72-1.88; 1.05 D vs 0.22 +/- 0.13; 0.00-0.47; 0.23 D (P =.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Accommodation after implantation of a presumably accommodative PCIOL can be measured with clinical methods or derived from the biometric data of the eye and the measured ACD decrease using geometrical optics. For clinical purposes, pseudophakic accommodation should be assessed with a variety of different techniques, including subjective and objective measurements. The theoretical approach using geometrical optics may be an additional indicator for the accommodative response in patients with pseudophakic eyes and may allow a subdivision of the measured accommodation into true pseudophakic accommodation and pseudoaccommodation.

Clinical study of the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To compare the near functional capacities of patients with an accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) with those of patients with a conventional monofocal IOL.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.

METHODS

This prospective double-blind case-control study comprised 42 eyes that had phacoemulsification and implantation of 1 of 2 types of IOLs: HumanOptics accommodating 1CU(R) (study group) and Eurocrystal IFP 3G 6.00 (control group). The main outcome measures were subjective refraction, uncorrected distance acuity, best corrected distance acuity, distance corrected near acuity at 40 cm, best corrected near acuity at 40 cm, and subjective amplitude of accommodation. Patients were examined 7, 30, 90, and 180 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, both groups had excellent uncorrected distance acuity, best corrected distance acuity, and best corrected near acuity. In the study group, the mean distance corrected near acuity (Jaeger) was 5.43 +/- 0.98 (SD) (range 4 to 7) at 7 days, 2.33 +/- 0.48 (range 2 to 3) at 1 and 3 months, and 3.66 +/- 2.12 (range 2 to 7) at 6 months. In the control group, the mean distance corrected near acuity was 7.43 +/- 0.50 (range 7 to 8) during the entire follow-up. The differences between the groups was statistically significant (P<.001). The mean amplitude of accommodation was 0.00 diopter (D) in the control group and 1.14 +/- 0.44 D (range 0.75 to 2.00 D) in the study group at 7 days, 2.36 +/- 0.28 D (range 2.00 to 2.75 D) at 30 and 90 days, and 1.90 +/- 0.77 D (range 0.75 to 2.75 D) at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1CU accommodating IOL provided better useful spectacle-free near visual acuity than the conventional monofocal IOL. However, the accommodating mechanism can play a role in capsule fibrosis.

Measurement of accommodation after implantation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To analyze techniques of measuring accommodation after implantation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens (PC IOL).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology and University Eye Hospital, University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

METHODS

This prospective study analyzed 23 eyes of 23 patients (aged 41 to 87 years) after cataract surgery and PC IOL implantation (1 CU, HumanOptics) 4 weeks and 3 and 6 months after surgery. The results were compared to those in an age-matched control group (n = 20) 6 months after surgery. The following methods were used to measure accommodation: dynamic with objective techniques (PlusOptix PowerRefractor videorefractometry, streak retinoscopy) and subjective techniques (subjective near point [push-up test, accommodometer], defocusing); static with pharmacologic stimulation after pilocarpine 2% eyedrops directly (conventional refractometry); indirectly (change in the anterior chamber depth [ACD] with Zeiss IOLMaster).

RESULTS

Results at 6 months, given as mean +/- SD (range), in the study and control groups, respectively, were as follows: near visual acuity (Birkhäuser reading charts at 35 cm) with distance correction, 0.32 +/- 0.11 (0.20 to 0.60) and 0.14 +/- 0.10 (0.05 to 0.30); accommodation amplitude (diopters) by PowerRefractor, 1.00 +/- 0.44 (0.75 to 2.13) and 0.35 +/- 0.26 (0.10 to 0.65), by retinoscopy, 0.99 +/- 0.48 (0.13 to 2.00) and 0.24 +/- 0.21 (-0.13 to +0.75), by subjective near point, 1.60 +/- 0.55 (0.50 to 2.56) and 0.42 +/- 0.25 (0.00 to 0.75), and by defocusing, 1.46 +/- 0.53 (1.00 to -2.50) and 0.55 +/- 0.33 (0.25 to 0.87). The mean ACD decrease (mm) was 0.78 +/- 0.12 (0.49 to 1.91) and 0.16 +/- 0.09 (0.00 to 0.34) after pilocarpine 2% eyedrops, indicating a mean accommodation of 1.40 D and 0.29 D, respectively, based on Gullstrand's model eye (P =.001). The lowest fluctuation between follow-ups was with the subjective near point and the defocusing techniques followed by ACD decrease with the IOLMaster.

CONCLUSIONS

Accommodation after implantation of an accommodating PC IOL should be assessed with several techniques, including subjective and objective, to differentiate true pseudophakic accommodation from pseudoaccommodation. Researchers should be aware of the different variability and consistency of measurements with each technique over time.

Cardinal points and image-object magnification with an accommodative lens implant (1 CU)

A simple mathematical method for the determination of the cardinal points of pseudophakic eyes after implantation of an accommodative intraocular lens [posterior chamber intraocular lenses (PCIOL)] is presented. The purpose of this study was to explore the changes during pseudophakic accommodation (PAC) in (1). the positions of the cardinal points, (2). the distance of the object conjugate with the retina, and (3). the image-object magnification. These theoretical accommodation data are compared with clinical measurements.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Using biometrical measurements of the axial length, equivalent power of the cornea and the anterior chamber depth (ACD) in the non-accommodated state we used linear geometric optics for determination of the cardinal points and object distance as well as lateral magnification (the ratio of image to object size). With the measurement of ACD decrease (following pharmacological stimulation of the ciliary muscle with 2% pilocarpine eye drops) we determined the changes of the cardinal points and magnification to assess PAC amplitude from the shortening of the object distance. Calculated values of PAC amplitude were compared with the respective measured values derived from amplitude measures by accommodometer, defocusing and streak retinoscopy. We analysed the results of a prospective study on 35 eyes of 28 patients after cataract surgery (target refraction: -0.2 D) and accommodative PCIOL implantation (1 CU, Human Optics AG, Erlangen, Germany) 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

After pilocarpine eye drops, ACD (mean +/- S.D., range; median) decreased by 0.88 +/- 0.48 mm (0.51-1.91; 0.66). Distance of the in-focus object decreased from the non-accommodated state (-5.62 +/- 1.83 m, -25 to -1.1; -4.83 m) to the accommodated state (ACD decrease) (-0.81 +/- 0.21, -2.11 to -0.65; -0.79 m). For a theoretical ACD decrease of 1.0 mm (the intrinsic limitation of the PCIOL design) it was -0.59 +/- 0.28, -1.31 to -0.51; -0.63 m and resulted in an objective accommodative response of 1.49 +/- 0.16, 1.21-1.81; 1.46 D, depending on the actual geometry of the individual eye. On average, magnification as induced by PAC in contrast to that induced by adequate spectacle addition differed by only about 1%. Accommodation measured with defocusing and the accommodometer correlated significantly with the theoretical value based on IOLMaster measurement of ACD decrease (r = 0.752, p = 0.005 and r = 0.676, p = 0.02). Likewise, accommodation measured with streak retinoscopy correlated weakly with the theoretical value based on IOLMaster ACD decrease (r = 0.465, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Using geometrical optics, PAC can be derived from the biometric data of the eye and the measured ACD decrease. This approach may be an additional indicator for the accommodative response in pseudophakic patients and may allow a subdivision of the measured accommodation into true PAC and pseudoaccommodation, for example, because of increased depth of focus induced by pupillary constriction.

Short-term blood-aqueous barrier breakdown after implantation of the 1CU accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To quantify intraocular inflammation after phacoemulsification with implantation of an accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

METHODS

Twenty cataractous eyes of 20 patients without preexisting blood-aqueous barrier (BAB) deficiencies or previous intraocular surgery were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 64.6 years +/- 16.0 (SD). A single surgeon performed phacoemulsification through a superior sclerocorneal tunnel incision and implantation of a 1CU IOL (HumanOptics AG) though a 3.2 mm incision. The haptics of the single-piece acrylic 1CU lens are designed for anterior optic movement following ciliary muscle contraction. The postoperative treatment was standardized. Postoperative BAB breakdown was quantified by laser flare photometry (FC-1000, Kowa) at 1 day, 1 and 4 weeks, and 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

The mean aqueous flare was 6.3 photons/ms +/- 3.0 (SD) (range 4.0 to 12.2 photons/ms) 1 day postoperatively, with 64% of patients having normal aqueous flare values (<8.0 photons/ms). One week after surgery, the mean aqueous flare was 5.3 +/- 2.8 photons/ms (range 2.0 to 10.5 photons/ms). Four weeks postoperatively, aqueous flare was normal in all patients and remained stable below the normal limit for up to 6 months (mean 3.3 +/- 1.2 months; range 2.0 to 5.4 months). The number of aqueous cells did not increase at any follow-up and was normal in all eyes. No postoperative complications such as fibrin formation, synechias, macrophages on the IOL optic, or endophthalmitis were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Phacoemulsification with implantation of the 1CU accommodative IOL led to minimal and short-lasting BAB alteration. No signs of persistent inflammation or pigment dispersion were detected.

Implantation of a New Accommodative Posterior Chamber Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

A new, potentially accommodative posterior chamber lens (PCIOL) was designed based on principles elaborated by Hanna using finite element computer simulation methods. We report 3-month postoperative results in patients.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 12 eyes of 12 patients (age 45 to 87 yr) underwent phacoemulsification for cataracts and PCIOL implantation. The PCIOL, 1 CU, has haptics designed for anterior optic movement following ciliary muscle contraction. Patients were examined postoperatively after 1 and 2 days, 1, 2 and 6 weeks, and 3 months, and results were compared with a control group of 12 eyes that received standard PMMA or acrylic PCIOLs.

RESULTS

Surgery was uncomplicated and all PCIOLs were well-tolerated and stable with good centration in the capsular bag. The results were (mean +/- SD [range] and median; 1 CU versus control PCIOL): near visual acuity (Birkhäuser reading chart at 35 cm) with best distance correction 0.34 +/- 0.17 (0.2 to 0.6), 0.3 (J10-J1, median J7) versus 0.15 +/- 0.07 (0.1 to 0.3), 0.15 (J16-J7, median J13), P=.001; subjective near point 59 +/- 10 cm (40 to 100 cm), 53.5 cm versus 93 +/- 20 cm (64 to 128 cm), 86 cm, P=.004; retinoscopic accommodative range 1.2 +/- 0.4 D (0.63 to 1.5 D), 1.2 D versus 0.2 +/- 0.19 D (-0.25 to 0.5 D), 0.25 D, P < .001; decrease of anterior chamber depth after 2% pilocarpine 0.63 +/- 0.16 mm (0.40 to 0.91 mm), 0.63 mm versus 0.15 +/- 0.05 mm (0.08 to 0.20 mm), 0.17 mm, P < .001.

CONCLUSIONS

The new PCIOL appears to be safe at short to medium term. Our results indicate pseudophakic accommodation secondary to focus shift with this PCIOL. Additional larger and long-term studies are necessary for exact evaluation of safety and accommodative power of this new PCIOL.