Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Einfluss verschiedener multifokaler Intraokularlinsenkonzepte auf den Streulichtparameter

Influence of different multifocal intraocular lens concepts on retinal stray light parameters

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Ophthalmologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Multifokale Intraokularlinsen (MIOL) rufen entsprechend dem individuellen optischen Prinzip mehr oder weniger optische Phänomene hervor. Anhand der Streulichtmessung mit dem C-Quant (Oculus, Deutschland) und einem individuellen Fragebogen sollen 3 verschiedene Multifokallinsenmodelle und -prinzipien verglichen werden.

Patienten und Methoden

Die AMO ReZoom (refraktiv, n=10), die AMO ZM900 (diffraktiv, n=10) und die Oculentis Mplus (Segment-MIOL, n=10) wurden verglichen. Es wurden sowohl Katarakt- als auch refraktive Patienten eingeschlossen. Mindestens 3 Monate postoperativ wurden funktionelle Ergebnisse untersucht, der Streulichtparameter gemessen und eine subjektive Befragung der Patienten durchgeführt.

Ergebnisse

Alle Operationen wurden komplikationslos durchgeführt. Die Gruppen wurden entsprechend Alter, IOL-Stärke und bestkorrigiertem Fernvisus angeglichen. Die MIOLs unterscheiden sich hinsichtlich des Streulichtparameters (Median) signifikant (Kruskal-Wallis-Test, p<0,05): 1,12 log (refraktiv), 1,13 log (Segment) und 1,28 log (diffraktiv). Mit dem subjektiven Fragebogen konnten in der Blendungswahrnehmung keine Unterschiede festgestellt werden. Patienten mit Segment-MIOL geben aber deutlich weniger Störung durch Halos um Lichtquellen an als refraktive und diffraktive MIOL-Patienten.

Schlussfolgerung

Streulicht und subjektive photopische Phänomene korrelieren nicht grundsätzlich. Patienten mit refraktiver MIOL zeigen weniger Streulicht, geben aber mehr Halos an als Patienten mit Segment- oder diffraktiver MIOL.

Abstract

Purpose

Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOL) are known to induce various photic phenomena depending on the optical principle. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between stray light measurements performed with the C-Quant (Oculus, Germany) and the results of a subjective patient questionnaire.

Patients and methods

In this study three different MIOLs were compared: AMO ReZoom (refractive design, n=10), AMO ZM900 (diffractive design, n=10) and Oculentis Mplus (near segment design, n=10). Cataract and refractive patients were enrolled in the study. Functional results were evaluated at least 3 months postoperatively followed by stray light measurements and a subjective questionnaire.

Results

Surgery was performed for all patients without complications. The three groups were matched for age, IOL power and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). Significantly different stray light (median) values log(s) were found (Kruskal-Wallis test, p<0.05): 1.12 log (refractive), 1.13 log (segment) and 1.28 log (diffractive). The subjective questionnaire did not show differences in glare perception but refractive MIOL patients noticed more halos surrounding light sources than the diffractive and segment MIOL patients.

Conclusions

Stray light and subjective photopic phenomena do not show any basic correlation. Measurements in patients with refractive MIOLs showed less stray light than near segment or diffractive MIOLs. However, refractive MIOLs induced more halos compared to the other groups analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Alió JL, Piñero DP, Plaza-Puche AB, Chan MJ (2008) Visual outcomes and optical performance of a monofocal intraocular lens and a new-generation multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(2):241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Auffarth GU, Rabsilber TM, Kohnen T, Holzer MP (2008) Design und optische Prinzipien von Multifokallinsen. Ophthalmologe 105:522–526

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Auffarth GU, Rabsilber TM, Philips R, Novak J (2009) Oculentis LENTIS Mplus: Ein völlig neues Konzept in der multifokalen Linsentechnologie. 22. Internationaler Kongress der deutschen Ophthalmochirurgen. Aktiv-Druck & Verlags GmbH, Ebelsbach, S 226

  4. Buznego C, Trattler WB (2009) Presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20:13–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cerviño A, Hosking SL, Montés-Micó R, Alió JL (2008) Retinal straylight in patients with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:441–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cillino S, Casuccio A, Di Pace F et al (2008) One-year outcomes with new-generation multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 115:1508–1516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vries NE de, Webers CA, Verbakel F et al (2010) Visual outcome and patient satisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation: aspheric versus spherical design. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1897–1904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vries NE de, Franssen L, Webers CA et al (2008) Intraocular straylight after implantation of the multifocal AcrySof ReSTOR SA60D3 diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:957–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Schwenn O et al (1999) Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology 106:1878–1886

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Franssen L, Coppens JE, Berg TJ van den (2006) Compensation comparison method for assessment of retinal straylight. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:768–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Franssen L, Tabernero J, Coppens JE, Berg TJ van den (2007) Pupil size and retinal straylight in the normal eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:2375–2382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. García-Lázaro S, Ferrer-Blasco T, Ortí-Navarro S et al (2010) Relevance of pupil size in the clinical determination of retinal straylight on young healthy human eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248:395–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hofmann T, Zuberbuhler B, Cervino A et al (2009) Retinal straylight and complaint scores 18 months after implantation of the AcrySof monofocal and ReSTOR diffractive intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 25:485–492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hütz WW, Eckhardt HB, Röhrig B, Grolmus R (2008) Intermediate vision and reading speed with array, Tecnis, and ReSTOR intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 24:251–256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ijspeert JK, Waard PW de, Berg TJ van den, Jong PT de (1990) The intraocular straylight function in 129 healthy volunteers; dependence on angle, age and pigmentation. Vision Res 30:699–707

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Javitt J, Brauweiler HP, Jacobi KW et al (2000) Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Multicenter clinical trial in Germany and Austria. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:1356–1366

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaymak H, Klabe K, Breyer DRH (2010) Diffraktive MIOL? Refraktive MIOL? Monovision? Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 227(Suppl 1):S1–S24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kohnen T, Derhartunian V (2007) Apodisierte Diffraktionsoptik: Neues Konzept in der Multifokallinsentechnologie. Ophthalmologe 104:899–904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kohnen T, Nuijts R, Levy P et al (2009) Visual function after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses with a +3.0 D addition. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:2062–2069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Martínez Palmer A, Gómez Faiña P, España Albelda A et al (2008) Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Refract Surg 24:257–264

    Google Scholar 

  21. Michael R, Rijn LJ van, Berg TJ van den et al (2009) Association of lens opacities, intraocular straylight, contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in European drivers. Acta Ophthalmol 87:666–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nijkamp MD, Dolders MG, Brabander J de et al (2004) Effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses to correct presbyopia after cataract surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology 111:1832–1839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nischler C, Dopsch U, Emesz M et al (2006) Ein neues Straylightmeter im klinischen Test. Spektrum Augenheilkd 20:200–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rabsilber TM, Ehmer A, Holzer MP et al (2010) LENTIS Mplus: 12 Monatsergebnisse einer neuen Multifokallinsentechnologie. 23. Internationaler Kongress der deutschen Ophthalmochirurgen, Hamburg. Aktiv-Druck & Verlags GmbH, Ebelsbach, S 307

  25. Berg TJ van den, Franssen L, Coppens JE (2009) Straylight in the human eye: testing objectivity and optical character of the psychophysical measurement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 29:345–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berg TJ van den, Van Rijn LJ, Michael R et al (2007) Straylight effects with aging and lens extraction. Am J Ophthalmol 144:358–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Berg TJ van den (1995) Analysis of intraocular straylight, especially in relation to age. Optom Vis Sci 72:52–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Berg TJ van den, Ijspeert JK (1991) Retinal contrast loss with non-monofocal IOLs. Doc Ophthalmol 78:161–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heijde GL van der, Weber J, Boukes R (1985) Effects of straylight on visual acuity in pseudophakia. Doc Ophthalmol 59:81–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor weist auf folgende Beziehungen hin: Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass das International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) Forschungsgelder von Abbott Medical Optics und Oculentis erhalten hat.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), Universitäts- Augenklinik, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    A. Ehmer,  T.M. Rabsilber, A. Mannsfeld, M.J. Sanchez, M.P. Holzer & G.U. Auffarth

Authors
  1. A. Ehmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T.M. Rabsilber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Mannsfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M.J. Sanchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M.P. Holzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G.U. Auffarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T.M. Rabsilber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ehmer, A., Rabsilber, T., Mannsfeld, A. et al. Einfluss verschiedener multifokaler Intraokularlinsenkonzepte auf den Streulichtparameter. Ophthalmologe 108, 952–956 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-011-2411-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-011-2411-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation