medigraphic.com
Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México

2005, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2005; 79 (5)

Accommodative lenses: analyze and results.

Ibáñez-Hernández MA, Ramos-Espinoza K

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 263-267
PDF size: 59.79 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the power of accommodation with intraocular lens Model CU in patients after phacoemulsification.
Method: A longitudinal prospective study of 30 operated patients with cataract was made. In all patients an intraocular lens, model CU HUMAN OPTIC, was implanted. Follow up was done after 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 18 months.
Results: 100% of the patients presented a visual acuity of 20/40 or better, 8% displayed J1 3 months after the surgery, 66% presented J4 and 26% displayed worse J5.
Conclusions: We conclude that the lens CU provides a range of accommodation of 1.75 D.


REFERENCES

  1. 1. Kaufman PL. Accommodation and presbyopia: neuro-

  2. muscular and biophysical aspects. En: Hart WM Jr (ed.). Adler´s Physiology of the Eye; Clinical Aplication, 9th ed. St Louis, Mosby; 1992. 391-411.

  3. 2. Humber C. Myopic astigmatism; a substitude for accommoda-

  4. tion in pseudophakia. Doc Ophthalmol 1981; 52:123-178.

  5. 3. Elder MJ, Murphy C, Sanderson GF. Apparent accommoda-

  6. tion and depth of field in pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22:615- 619.

  7. 4. Cumming JS, Slade SG, Chayet A. Clinical evaluation of the model AT-45 silicone accommodating intraocular lens; results of feasibility and the initial phase of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trail; the AT-45 Study Group. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 2005-2009.

  8. 5. Legeais JM Werner L y col. Pseudoaccommodation: BioComFold versus a foldable intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25:262-267.

  9. 6. Hardman LSJ, Rubinstein MP, Snead MP, Haworth AM. Pseudophakic accommodation? A study of the stability of capsular bag supported, one piece, rigid tripod, or soft flexible implants. Br J. Ophthalmol 1990; 74:22-25.

  10. 7. Nakazawa M, Ohtsuki K. Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes after implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses: optical analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1984; 25:1458-1460.

  11. 8. Muti DO, Zadnik K, Egashira S y col. The effect of cycloplegia on measurement of the ocular components. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35:515-527.

  12. 9. Drexler W, Baumgartner A, Findl O y col . Biometric investigation of changes in the anterior eye segment during accommodation Vision Res 1997; 37:2789-2800.

  13. 10. Allen ED, Burton RL, Webber SK y col. Comparison of a diffractive bifocal and a monofocal intraocular lens. J. Cataratct Refractive Surgery 1996; 22: 446-451.

  14. 11. Rana A, Miller D, Magnante P. Understanding the accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refractive Surg 2003; 29:2284-2287.

  15. 12. Kücle M y col. Implantation of a New Accommodative Posterior Chamber Intraocular Lens. J Refractive Surg 2002; 18;208-215.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com