This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (20)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Intraocular Lenses  • Prostheses/ Implants  • Articles for Residents  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Achim Langenbucher, PhD; Berthold Seitz, MD, FEBO; Stefan Huber, MD; Nhung X. Nguyen, MD; Michael Küchle, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:1722-1727.

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.

From the Department of Ophthalmology and University Eye Hospital, University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Optomechanical Response of Human and Monkey Lenses in a Lens Stretcher
Manns et al.
IOVS 2007;48:3260-3268.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT