Straylight (disability glare) results in case of a diffractive multifocal IOL design with apodization pattern adjusted to reduce glare. Ruth Lapid-Gortzak.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Eye Clinic, Hospital of Legnago, Verona, Italy

Advertisements

VisTor The new Toric IOL by Hanita Lenses

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

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.

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

Unilateral Implantation of Presbyopic Correcting IOLs – A Comparison of ReZoom, ReSTOR, Crystalens 5.0, and Crystalens HD Frank A. Bucci, Jr, MD Bucci.

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,

Disclosure of finanacial interest * Author has no financial interest in this paper. ** Author's research is partially funded by Imperial Medical Technologies.

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,

1 Clinical Performance of the Crystalens® AO Guy M. Kezirian, MD, FACS.

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

Phacoemulsification with Goniosynechialysis in the Management of Refractory Acute Angle-closure Glaucoma Ghasem Fakhraie*, MD, Mahmoud Jabbarvand, MD,

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

Visualized light paths in different multifocal

Functional Vision With Apodized Diffractive Aspheric Multifocal IOL With +3.0 D Add Jonathan M. Davidorf, MD Los Angeles, CA ASCRS Annual Symposium March,

W. Andrew Maxwell, MD, PhD California Eye Institute; Fresno, CA and Billy R. Hammond, Jr, PhD Vision Sciences Laboratory, University of Georgia; Athens,

Recent Advances in Intraocular Lenses Jim Schwiegerling, PhD Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences Optical Sciences.

Evaluation of Corneal Parameters and Spherical Aberration After DSAEK Measured with Pentacam System Orkun Muftuoglu, Pawan Prasher, R. Wayne Bowman, Steven.

Phacoemulsification in eyes with previous anterior chamber phakic IOL surgery Walton Nosé, MD, PhD 1,2 Adriana dos Santos Forseto, MD 1 Mariana Ávila,

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.

Outcomes after WIOL – CF accommodative intraocular lens implantation Institute of Vision and Optics University of Crete School of Medicine Heraklion, Crete.

Biometric Accuracy in High Hypermetropes and Myopes

Quality of Vision in Patients With Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy and After Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty van der Meulen IJE, Patel SV, Lapid-Gortzak.

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

Use of Multifocal IOLs in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration Helga P. Sandoval, MD, MSCR 1 Reid B. Murphy, MD, 1 Luis E. Fernández de Castro,

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

Sonia Yoo, MD 1 Fernanda Piccoli, MD 1 Artur Schmitt, MD 1 Takeshi Ide, MD 1 Tsontcho Ianchulev, MD 2 Authors have no financial interest in this subject.

Ruth Lapid-Gortzak MD, Jan Willem van der Linden, BOpt,

Kaori Morii, M.D. Shinji Miura, M.D, Ph.D. Dept. of Ophthalmology, Asagiri Hospital, Hyogo, JPN We have no financial interest. This retrospective study.

Reproducibility of Optical Measurements in Pseudophakic eyes Using Double-Pass Measurement System St Thomas Hospital, London Anish Dhital, David Spalton,

The Effect of Corneal Anterior Surface Eccentricity on Astigmatism after Cataract Surgery Choul Yong Park MD 1 Sung Jun Lee MD 1 Prabjot Channa MD 2 Roy.

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.

Binocular Defocus Curve of Apodized Diffractive Multifocal IOL in Asian-Indian Eyes Dr.A. Shetty; Dr. M. K. Kummelil; Dr. S.Nagappa Cataract and Refractive.

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:

Ophthalmology & Vision Sciences

Ocular functional optical zone following hyperopic LASIK/PRK: Analysis based on polychromatic retinal image quality Mitchell P. Weikert, MD Li Wang, MD,

Johns Hopkins Hospital

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

AcrySof ® ReSTOR ® Apodized Diffractive IOL. What is the AcrySof ® ReSTOR ® IOL? The AcrySof ® ReSTOR ® IOL incorporates an apodized diffractive optic.

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

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

Comparison of 2 Models of Aspheric Diffractive Multifocal IOL

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.

Warren Hill, MD, FACS East Valley Ophthalmology 5620 E. Broadway Road

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.

Dissatisfication After Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Taiwan Yu Wei Lin, MD (Presenting Author); Ching-Ju Hsieh; Lin-Chung Woung The authors.

"Mix and Match" approach implantation

Corneal CXL in Pediatric Patients with Progressive Keratoconus Stephanie Wise, Christian Diaz, Karolien Termote, Paul J. Dubord, Martin McCarthy, Sonia.

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.

Hayashi Eye Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

Thomas Kohnen, MD Department of Ophthalmology

Comparison of vision with an accommodating IOL versus a multifocal IOL

성모병원 안센터 CHANGES IN ASTIGMATISM RELATIVE TO IOL HAPTIC INSERTION AXIS IN WITH-THE-RULE AND AGAINST-THE-RULE ASTIGMATISM PATIENTS Hyun Seung Kim, M.D.

Kellan Tetraflex KH3500 Accommodative IOLs vs. Acri

I.J.E van der Meulen1, C.P. Nieuwendaal1,

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

Consultant Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth

Presentation transcript:

Straylight (disability glare) results in case of a diffractive multifocal IOL design with apodization pattern adjusted to reduce glare. Ruth Lapid-Gortzak MD PhD1,2 Jan Willem van der Linden Boptom. 2 Ivanka van der Meulen MD1,2 Tom van den Berg PhD3 1. AMC, University of Amsterdam 2. Retina Total Eye Care, Driebergen 3. NIN, KNAW

Financial Disclosure: Dr. Lapid is a speaker for Alcon, Hanita Lenses, MSD, Oculentis, and a clinical investigator for Alcon. Dr. van den Berg has no proprietary interests, the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences owns the patent for the C-Quant straylight meter. Mr. Van der Linden and Dr. van der Meulen have no interest to disclose.

Introduction: Multifocal intraocular lenses are designed to effectively restore visual acuity for distance and near. Different optical designs of multifocal IOL may affect side effects experienced by the patient. Some of these side effects are possibly related to glare disability, which is straylight. The effect of multifocality on straylight is not yet clear.

Straylight E disability glare parameter for quality of vision Light that does not come to focus on the retina, but is strayed in the eye by its own structures, and cause veiling of sight Lapid-Gortzak et al

Commission Internationale d’Eclairage (CIE): Disability Glare = Straylight retinal straylight is caused by scattering of light in the optically imperfect optical components of the eye Lapid-Gortzak et al LAPID AMC NL

Straylight effects Effects of Straylight: loss of contrast & Blinding @ night Lapid-Gortzak et al

Straylight meter Oculus (Germany based firm) C-Quant Available since June 2005 Based on a patent from the Netherlands Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences Lapid-Gortzak et al LAPID AMC NL

Background In the literature: Author Journal Conclusion Dick et al 1999 Ophthalmology No difference between MFIOL and monoIOL De Vries et al 2008 JCRS SN6AD3 higher log(s) 0.078 Ehmer et al 2011 Ophthalmologe higher straylight with MFIOL Hoffmann et al 2009 JRS No difference Cervino et al 2010 JCRS Addition type +3 +4 no difference Schrecker et al 2012 JCRS No difference diffractive versus sectorial addition In the literature:

Purpose To investigate the behavior in straylight in 2 types of apodized diffractive multifocal IOLs (SN6AD1, Alcon, USA, versus Seelens MF and BunnyLens MF, Hanita Lenses, Israel). Hanita claims in adjustments to the apodization surface to reduce side effects such as halos.

Methods: Prospective interventional case cohort Tenets of Declaration of Helsinki adhered to Standard phacoemulsification surgery – implantation with the MFIOL that the patient opted for. Inclusion: uneventful phacoemulsification. Exclusion: other types of lenses, incomplete data-set, other ocular findings that may influence straylight measurements, such as corneal problems, or vitreous turbidity, PCO etc. Outcome measures: UDVA, CDVA, Straylight (log (s)), refraction, pre and post operatively

Methods: MF IOLs compared: SeeLens MF BunnyLens MF SN6AD1 (Hanita Lenses, Israel) hydrophilic multifocal apodized diffractive IOL 11 rings on the surface, 6mm optic & 13mm haptic diameter. Identical optic design. (“ReSTOR”, Alcon, USA) is hydrophobic multifocal apodized diffractiveIOL 9 rings on the surface 6mm optic & 13mm haptic diameter.

Results CVDA and refraction: SeeLens MF BunnyLens MF SN6AD1 N 84 79 pre-op CDVA (logMAR +/- SD, range) 0.04+ 0.08 (0.3 to -0.1) 0.06 + 0.10 (0.4 to -0.1) post-op CDVA (logMAR+/-SD, range) -0.03 + 0.06 (0.2 to -0.16) -0.02 + 0.08 (0.4 to -0.2) preopRefraction SE +/- SD (range) +1.30 D+ 2.05 (-6.625 to +5.75) +0.48 + 2.65 (-10.75 to +6.00) postopRefraction SE +/- SD (range 0.01 + 0.43 (-1.375 to 1.25) 0.06 + 0.35 (-0.75 to 0.875)

Results straylight 0.084 log(s) between SeeLens/BunnyLens vs SN6AD1. Pre-op log(s) Post op log(s) Improvement SN6AD1 1.20 + 0.20 1.16 + 0.14 0.05+ 0.20 SeeLens/BunnyLens 1.17 + 0.19 1.08 + 0.19 0.10 + 0.20 0.084 log(s) between SeeLens/BunnyLens vs SN6AD1. Age adjusted difference: 0.0707 log(s) in favor of SeeLens/BunnyLens p<0.0056 (double sided t-test) Reasons: Adjusted apodization pattern Hydrophilic material versus hydrophobic material

Results: straylight improvement upon surgery

Results: Post-op Straylight values compared to the phakic norm

Conclusion: Post-operatively the hydrophilic lens with adjusted apodization resulted on average in 0.0707 log (s) less straylight (p<0.0056). Clinically, a mean difference of 0.1 log(s) is comparable to 1 line on the visual acuity chart. IOLs perform equally in terms of postoperative CDVA and spherical equivalent refraction. These lenses differ in: material – hydrophilic versus hydrophobic, in UV filters – violet filter versus blue-blocking filters, and in the pattern of apodization. More study is needed to completely understand the cause of the difference and its clinical impact.