Global Meta-Analysis on Visual and Optical Quality Comparison for Aspheric vs Spherical IOL Technology James P. McCulley, MD Department of Ophthalmology.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Theoretical Optical Performance of an Equal Conic Intraocular Lens and Comparison to Spherical and Aspheric IOLs Edwin J. Sarver, PhD.

Advertisements

Comparison of Visual Outcomes With Toric IOL and With Limbal Relaxing Incisions in Cataract Surgery Eriko Fukuyama, MD Fukuyama Eye Clinic Fukuoka, Japan.

Issues to cover: Spherical vs. Aspherical Spherical vs. Aspherical Effect of Pupil Size Effect of Pupil Size Effect of IOL decentration Effect of IOL decentration.

Diffractive Multifocal IOL Prof. Dr. Daniel H. Scorsetti

Clinical Outcomes after Presbyopic Correcting Intraocular Lens Surgery in Patients with Prior Keratorefractive Surgery at UTSW Medical Center: A Retrospective.

Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after phacoemulsification trough 3.2, 2.2 and 1.8 clear corneal incision. Luis Izquierdo Jr MD. PhD. Maria.

Accuracy of Predicted Refractive Error in Resident-Performed Cataract Surgery Using Partial Coherence Interferometry Nickolas P. Katsoulakis, M.D., Paul.

R. Lehmann, MD ASCRS 2008 Clinically Relevant Advantages in the Functional Performance of the AcrySof ® IQ IOL Robert P. Lehmann, MD, FACS Lehmann Eye.

Keiichiro Minami, Hiroko Bissen-Miyajima, Mami Yoshino, Kunihiko Nakamura Department of Ophthalmology Tokyo Dental College Suidobashi Hospital, Tokyo,

Visual outcome & subjective visual symptoms of the Tecnis ZM900 multifocal intraocular lens in Asian eyes Dr Colin S.H. Tan MBBS, MMed (Ophth), FRCSEd.

Multifocal Intraocular Lenses & Contrast Sensitivity

Aspheric IOL’s: clinical benefits and customizing cataract surgery Bojan Pajic, MD, PhD, FEBO Swiss Eye Research Foundation, ORASIS, Reinach, Switzerland.

Anupama Kotha 1, Simar J. Singh 1, William B. Trattler 1,2, Carlos Buznego 1,2 The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster.

A Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Evaluation of Patients with Contralateral Implantation of Two Aspheric Acrylic Intraocular Lenses R. Cionni, MD.

Myoung Joon Kim, MD Len Zheleznyak, MS2

CLINICAL OUTCOMES WITH A NEW DIFFRACTIVE MULTIFOCAL INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) Pilar Casas de Llera Ana Belen Plaza Alfredo Vega-Estrada Jorge L Alio Vissum.

1 OPTICAL QUALITY OF DUAL- OPTIC ACCOMMODATING INTRAOCULAR LENS Andrea Galvis, MD 1,3 a Ivan Ossma, MD MPH MSc 1,2, a Sanjeev Kasthurirangan, PhD 4, b.

Ruth Lapid-Gortzak MD PhD 1,2, Jan Willem van der Linden BOpt 2, and Ivanka J. van der Meulen MD 1,2 1 Department of Ophthalmology, Academic Medical Center,

Progressive Multifocal Intraocular Lens G. Rubiolini M.D. Italy Disclosure of finanacial interest Author's research is partially funded.

Mayank A. Nanavaty, DO, MRCOphth, MRCS(Ed) David J. Spalton, FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth James F. Boyce, PhD Thomas J. T. P. Van den berg, PhD St. Thomas’ Hospital,

Anterior Chamber Depth, Iridocorneal Angle Width, and Intraocular Pressure Changes After Phacoemulsification: Narrow vs Open Iridocorneal Angles Huang.

Retrospective Comparison of 3177 Eyes Implanted with Presbyopic IOLs Carlos Buznego MD Elizabeth A. Davis MD, FACS Guy M. Kezirian MD, FACS William B.

M. Allison Roensch, MD, Preston H. Blomquist, MD, Nalini K Aggarwal, MD, James P. McCulley, MD Department of Ophthalmology University of Texas Southwestern.

The Effect of the Restor Multifocal IOL on Frequency Doubling Perimetry Elizabeth Yeu, MD1, Elizabeth Woznak, BS2, Nicole Kesten, BS2, Steven VL Brown,

Mitchell A Jackson MD Founder/Director, Jacksoneye Lake Villa, IL USA

W. A. Maxwell, MD, PhD ASCRS 2008 Comparison of the Optical Image Quality for Presbyopia Correcting IOLs using Modulation Transfer Function Testing W.

G. Jacob 1,2, C. Bouchard 2, S. Kancherla 1. Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, IL, Department of Ophthalmology 1. Loyola University Medical Center,

1 Cataract Surgery Stephen G. Slade MD, FACS. 2 Financial Disclosure Alcon, AMO, B&L Consultant, Clarity, NuLens, RVO, Technolas 2 This presentation represents.

Blended vision after bilateral monofocal cataract surgery: an evaluation of spectacle independence and vision related quality of life Allison Landes, MD.

W. Maxwell, MD, PhD California Eye Institute Fresno, California

Change in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Visual Acuity After Bilateral Implantation of Apodized Diffractive +3.0 IOLs Stephen Lane, MD Consultant, Alcon.

Unilateral multifocal lens implantation in patients with a contralateral monofocal or phakic eye is a viable presbyopic correction option Robert J. Cionni,

Neeti Parikh, MD Fuxiang Zhang, MD Department of Ophthalmology Henry Ford Hospital A Comparison Of Patient Satisfaction With Modified Monovision Versus.

A Fellow Eye Comparison of Aberrations, Modulation Transfer Function and Contrast Sensitivity After AcrySof IQ and AcrySof Natural IOL Implantation. Mayank.

Clinical and simulation outcomes of a multifocal intraocular lens with rotational asymmetry and two different levels of near addition Jorge Alió, MD,PhD.

P91: Clinical Performance of Phakic Angle-Supported Investigational IOL in Prospective Global Trials, ASCRS 2010, Boston P91: Clinical performance of phakic.

The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.

LONG TERM OUTCOMES OF RESTOR IOL IMPLANTATION Lori Dao, Orkun Muftuoglu, V. Vinod Mootha, Steven M. Verity, R. Wayne Bowman, H. Dwight Cavanagh, James.

Department of Ophthalmology Rudolf Foundation Clinic Vienna Head: Prof. Dr. Susanne Binder YEWHI-Study - A Comparison Between Blue Light Filtering and.

Simple Presbyopic Correction Technique Mahmoud M. Ismail, M.D Ph.D. Professor of Ophthalmology Al-Azhar University Medical Director Nour El Hayat Eye Center.

DGII 2008 Comparison of Aspheric ReSTOR and Tecnis multifocal IOL Dongho Lee MD, PhD Yonsei eye center, Seoul, South Korea No Financial Interest.

Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Abdullah Al-assiri Mansour Farooqui Abdulrahman Al-Muammar Saudi Ophthalmology Meeting 2009.

AcrySof ® ReSTOR ® Aspheric IOL. Aspheric IOL AcrySof ® ReSTOR ® 2 AcrySof ® ReSTOR ® Aspheric IOL SN6AD3 Add Power: +4 D Spectacle Plane: 3.2 D Range:

Futoshi Taketani, MD,PhD,

S. Lee/M.Kim 2010 M. Kim 1, H. Lee 1, S. Lee 1,, S.D. Lee 1 1 ASA-Vision Clinics Seoul Comparative Analysis Preliminary Results of.

LogMAR-Analysis of multifocal intraocular lenses: Clinical performance A. Mannsfeld, I.-J. Limberger, A. Ehmer, M.P. Holzer, G. U.Auffarth International.

Financial Disclosure: Medical Director–Galilei R&D Consultant, Ziemer Group AG, Port, Switzerland Consultant & Territory Manager for.

Variations in refractive analysis with different diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses using different wavefront analyzers Mami Yoshino, Hiroko Bissen-Miyajima,

Comparative Study of the Aspheric Akreos Adapt AO IOL Versus the Spherical Akreos Adapt IOL Maghizh Anandan Martin Leyland.

Comparison of visual function following piggyback implantation of Acrysof ReSTOR intraocular lenses with Tecnis multifocal ZM900 intraocular lenses. Rodrigo.

O.I.I. EC-3 Hydrophobic Acrylic Intraocular Lens: The European Experience Thierry Amzallag, M.D. Institut Ophtalmique Somain, France.

Investigation of Multifocal Toric IOLs to Compensate for Corneal Astigmatism and to Provide Near, Intermediate, and Distance Vision José L. Rincón, MD.

Preliminary Results after Cataract Surgery with the Aspheric Acrysof ReSTOR IOL to Correct Presbyopia Meeting of the ASCRS Chicago 8-10 February 2007 R.M.M.A.

Toric IOLs: wavefront aberrometry and quality of life Mencucci Rita Giordano Cristina, Stiko Ermelinda, Miranda Paolo, Eleonora Favuzza, Ugo Menchini Authors.

F.I. Camesasca, MD Zeiss Invent ZO Aspheric IOL: Long-Term Results of Refractive and Aberrometric Analysis F. I. Camesasca* P. Vinciguerra.

Glistenings in Alcon Acrysof Intraocular Lenses

Outcomes Update for an Aspheric Accommodating IOL John A. Hovanesian, M.D. Clinical Instructor, UCLA Jules Stein Eye Institute Harvard Eye Associates,

Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic M. Vokrojova MD, M. Vokrojova MD, D. Sivekova MD,

Kavita Gala David Spalton Mayank Nanavaty St Thomas’ Hospital , London

FreeVis LASIK Zentrum Universitätsklinikum Mannheim

Postoperative Refraction and Patient Satisfaction after Bilateral Implantation of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses Robert Cionni, MD Financial.

Eye clinic of the 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic

University of Florence Oto-Neuro-Ophthalmological Department

MI60 INTRAOCULAR LENSES – OUR EXPERIENCE

Poster Number: P90 Category: Intraocular Surgery (Cataract and Refractive) Optimization of IOL Power Calculation Constants: By Unit or by Surgeon? Nathaniel.

Thomas Kohnen, MD Department of Ophthalmology

Comparison of vision with an accommodating IOL versus a multifocal IOL

Aspheric IOLs Comparative Study of Acri.Smart 46S*

David T. Vroman, MD Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology

Comparative Global Literature Review of Visual and Optical Quality of Refractive, Diffractive, and Hybrid IOL Designs James P. McCulley, MD Department.

Presentation transcript:

Global Meta-Analysis on Visual and Optical Quality Comparison for Aspheric vs Spherical IOL Technology James P. McCulley, MD Department of Ophthalmology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Dr McCulley is a consultant for Alcon Laboratories, Inc.

Purpose To address the question of whether patient visual and optical quality outcomes are benefited by implantation with aspheric IOLs instead of spherical IOLs Modeling suggests a difference should exist 1 Literature of controlled clinical studies has matured enough to merit systematic review to yield collective answers 1. Holladay JT, et al. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:

Methods: Literature Searches for Published Articles OvidSP Database (MEDLINE, EMBASE pooled) Keyword searches: 1. “intraocular lens” AND aspheric* 2. “intraocular lens” AND prolate 53 unique English-language results Discard reviews, editorials, case reports, methodology recommendations, preclinical trials Discard studies about multifocal or accommodative IOLs Discard studies without spherical controls 24 journal articles *Wildcard asterisk symbol returns “aspheric” or “aspherical,” etc.

Methods: Society Database Searches for Congress Abstracts 2008 only (assumption: abstracts from earlier meetings had time to reach publication) ASCRSASCRS ESCRSESCRS ARVOARVO † No wildcard functionality ‡ Not searchable; browsed free paper sessions AAO had 15 hits but no relevant results (not shown). keyword † intraocular + lens + aspheric Intraocular + lens + aspherical browsing ‡ “Aspheric IOLs,” “IOL technology” 8 abstracts 24 abstracts 17 abstracts Discard abstracts without relevant visual acuity outcomes reported Discard abstracts about multifocals or without spherical controls 2 abstracts 7 abstracts 1 abstract 10 abstracts keyword † intraocular + lens + aspheric Intraocular + lens + aspherical

Methods: Pooled Source Data 34 studies, 2832 eyes Aspheric IOLsSpherical Control IOLs ModelCompanyStudies, nModelCompanyStudies, n TecnisAMO19SensarAMO11 AcrySof IQAlcon13AcrySof NaturalAlcon9 Akreos Adapt AOB & L1AcrySof SA60ATAlcon8 SofPort AOB & L1ClariFlexAMO2 XL Stabi ZOZeiss1CeeOn EdgeAMO5 AcriSmart 36 AAcri.Tec1XL Stabi SkyZeiss1 Acri.Smart 46 SAcri.Tec1 ACR6D SECorneal1 AA4207VFStaar1 StabibagIoltech1 AcrySof MA60BMAlcon1 Older IOL names or manufacturers updated to most recent. Control design Groupwise: 17 studies Contralateral/intraindividual: 13 studies Unclear/unspecified: 4 studies

Results: Optical Quality Outcomes  In no case did a spherical lens outperform an aspheric lens  Study marked “yes” if aspheric IOL performed better than spherical IOL under any condition (eg, pupil size) –100% of studies (n = 23) found aspheric  reduction of spherical aberration –73% (n = 11) found aspheric  reduction of total high-order aberration Aspheric significantly better? 0

Results: Visual Acuity  In no case did a spherical lens outperform an aspheric lens  Study marked “yes” if aspheric IOL performed better than spherical IOL at any time point –11% of studies (n = 1) found aspheric  superior uncorrected visual acuity –7% (n = 2) found aspheric  superior best-corrected visual acuity –50% (n = 2) found aspheric  superior low-contrast visual acuity Aspheric significantly better?

Results: Contrast Sensitivity (CS)  In no case did a spherical lens outperform an aspheric lens  Study marked “yes” if aspheric IOL performed better than spherical IOL at any spatial frequency –62% of studies (n = 16) found aspheric  superior photopic CS –86% (n = 18) found aspheric  superior mesopic CS –82% (n = 9) found aspheric  superior mesopic + glare CS Aspheric significantly better?

Results: Depth of Focus (Range of Accommodation)  Only two studies reported this parameter –50% (n = 1) found aspheric IOL superior AcrySof IQ superior over AcrySof Natural –50% (n = 1) found aspheric not different from spherical IOL Akreos Adapt AO not superior over Sensar

Conclusions  Aspheric IOL performance was never inferior to spherical IOLs on any metric  Aspheric IOLs were superior on many metrics of optical quality and visual quality (especially contrast sensitivity)  Surgeons should consider aspheric IOLs for their patients

References (Database for Meta-Analysis) Journal articles 1.Ricci F, et al. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2004;82: Rocha KM, et al. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;142: Tzelikis PF, et al. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145: Kennis H, et al. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmologie 2004; Chen WR, et al. Chinese Med J 2006;119: Zeng M, et al. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007;35: Awwad ST, et al. Eur J Ophthalmol 2007;17: Xu R-F, et al. Int J Ophthalmol 2007;7: Subrayan V, et al. Int J Ophthalmol 2007;7: Packer M, et al. J Refract Surg 2002;18: Padmanabhan P, et al. J Refract Surg 2006;22: Awwad ST, et al. J Refract Surg 2008;24: Mester U, et al. JCRS 2003;29: Kershner RM. JCRS 2003;29: Packer M, et al. JCRS 2004;30: Bellucci R, et al. JCRS 2005;31: Munoz G, et al. JCRS 2006;32: Kasper T, et al. JCRS 2006;32: Tzelikis PF, et al. JCRS 2007;33: Bellucci R, et al. JCRS 2007;33: Pandita D, et al. JCRS 2007;33: Kurz S, et al. JCRS 2007;33: Denoyer A, et al. JCRS 2007;33: Lin IC, et al. JCRS 2008;34: Abstracts 1.Cox IG, et al. ARVO Habibollahi, A. ESCRS Jeong J, et al. ASCRS Kandil H, et al. ESCRS Nanavaty M, et al. ESCRS Seyeddain O, et al. ESCRS Thiagarajan M, et al. ESCRS Trüb P, Albach C. ESCRS Vokrojova M, et al. ASCRS Zamani M, Feghhi M. ESCRS 2008.