Korean J Ophthalmol.  2008 Jun;22(2):81-86. 10.3341/kjo.2008.22.2.81.

Clinical Evaluation of Accommodative Intraocular Lens Implantation in High Myopic Eyes

• Kim JH
• Park CS
• Chung TY
• Chung ES

• KMID: 1099000
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2008.22.2.81

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of AT-45 implantation between high myopic eyes and non-high myopic eyes. METHODS: Retrospective, non-randomized, comparative trial. The medical charts of 28 patients with 35 eyes who had phacoemulsification and AT-45 implantation were retrospectively reviewed. 13 eyes of 10 patients were included in the high myopic group (axial length > or = 26.0 mm) and 22 eyes of 18 patients were included in the non-high myopic group. The clinical data included unilateral best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 6 months follow-up after the surgery. The results were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In the non-high myopic group, 22 eyes (100%) and 19 eyes (86.4%) achieved a BCVA of 20/25 and 20/20 or better respectively. For the high myopic group, the results were 13 eyes (100%) and 12 eyes (92.3%) respectively, at 6 months after the surgery. In the non-high myopic group, 21 (95.4%) and 7 eyes (31.8%) achieved a DCNVA of 20/40 and 20/25 or better. For the high myopic group, the results were 13 (100%) and 4 eyes (30.8%) respectively, at 6 months after the surgery, the differences between the two groups for a BCVA of 20/25 or better and 20/20 or better and a DCNVA 20/40 or better and 20/25 or better were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Six months clinical outcome of cataract surgery with an AT-45 for the high myopic eyes was satisfactory; it was not significantly different from that of the non-high myopic eyes.

Keyword

Accommodative intraocular lens; AT-45; Cataract; Crystalens; High myopia

MeSH Terms

*Accommodation, Ocular
Adult
Aged
Female
Humans
*Lens Implantation, Intraocular
*Lenses, Intraocular
Male
Middle Aged
Myopia, Degenerative/*surgery
Phacoemulsification
Retrospective Studies
Visual Acuity/physiology

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Best-corrected distance visual acuity in the non-high myopic group (n=22) and the high myopic group (n=13), 6 months after AT-45 implantation.

• 

  Fig. 2 Distance-corrected near visual acuity in the non-high myopic group (n=22) and in the high myopic group (n=13), 6 months after AT-45 implantation.

Reference

1. Allen ED, Burton RL, Webber SK, et al. Comparison of a diffractive bifocal and a monofocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996. 22:446–451.

2. Gray PJ, Lyall MG. Diffractive mutifocal intraocular lens implants for unilateral cataract in prepresbyopic patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992. 76:336–337.

3. Steinert RF, Aker BL, Trentacost DJ, et al. A prospective comparative study of the AMO ARRAY zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 1999. 106:1243–1255.

4. Kűchle M, Nguyen NX, Langenbucher A, et al. Implantation of a new accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Refract Surg. 2002. 18:208–216.

5. Kim JH, Park CS, Chung TY, et al. Clinical Evaluation of AT-45 Implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007. 48:368–375.

6. Nakazawa M, Ohtsuki K. Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes after implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983. 96:435–438.

7. Trindade F, Oliveira A, Frasson M. Benefit of against-the-rule astigmatism to uncorrected near acuity. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997. 23:82–85.

8. Coleman PJ. On the hydraulic suspension theory of accommodation. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1986. 84:846–868.

9. Strenk SA, Semmlow JL, Strenk LM, et al. Age-related changes in human ciliary muscle and lens: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999. 40:1162–1169.

10. Cumming JS, Ritter JA. The measurement of vitreous cavity length and its comparison pre- and postoperatively. Eur J Implant Refract Surg. 1994. 6:261–272.

11. Cumming JS, Kammann J. Experience with an accommodating IOL. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996. 22:1001.

12. Cumming JS, Slade SG, Chayet A. Clinical evaluation of the model AT-45 silicone accommodating intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2001. 108:2005–2010.

13. Marchini G, Pedrotti E, Sartori P, Tosi R. Ultrasound biomicroscopic changes during accommodation in eyes with accommodating intraocular lenses: pilot study and hypothesis for the mechanism of accommodation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004. 30:2476–2482.

14. Stachs O, Schneider H, Stave J, Guthoff R. Potentially accommodating intraocular lenses-an in vitro and in vivo study using three-dimensional high-frequency ultrasound. J Refract Surg. 2005. 21:37–45.

15. Marchini G, Pedrotti E, Sartori P, Tosi R. Ultrasound biomicroscopic changes during accommodation in eyes with accommodating intraocular lenses: pilot study and hypothesis for the mechanism of accommodation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004. 30:2476–2482.

16. Koeppl C, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Pilocarpine-induced shift of an accommodating intraocular lens: AT-45 Crystalens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005. 31:1290–1297.

17. Alio JL, Tavolato M, De la Hoz F, et al. Near vision restoration with refractive lens exchange and pseudoaccommodating and multifocal refractive and diffractive intraocular lenses: comparative clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004. 30:2494–2503.

18. Buratto L, Di Meglio G. Accommodative intraocular lenses: short-term visual results of two different lens types. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2006. 16:33–39.

19. Cumming JS, Colvard DM, Dell SJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Crystalens AT-45 accommodating intraocular lens: results of the U.S. food and drug administration clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006. 32:812–825.

20. Macsai MS, Padnick-Silver L, Fontes BM. Visual outcomes after accommodating intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006. 32:628–633.

21. Steinert RF, Aker BL, Trentacost DJ, et al. A prospective comparative study of the AMO ARRAY zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 1999. 106:1243–1255.

22. Jacobi PC, Dietlein TS, Luke C, Jacobi FK. Multifocal intraocular lens implantation in presbyopic patients with unilateral cataract. Ophthalmology. 2002. 109:680–686.

23. Kuchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, et al. The Erlangen accommodative intraocular lens study group. Comparison of 6-month results of implantation of the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens with conventional intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology. 2004. 111:318–324.

24. Dogru M, Honda R, Omoto M, et al. Early visual results with the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005. 31:895–902.

25. Edwards MH, Lam CS. The epidemiology of Myopia in Hong Kong. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004. 33:34–38.

26. Kang SH, Kim PS, Choi DG. Prevalence of myopia in 19-year-old Korean males: The relationship between the prevalence and education or urbanization. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004. 45:2082–2087.

27. Munoz B, West SK, Rodriguez J, et al. Blindness, visual impairment and the problem of uncorrected refractive error in a Mexican-American population: Proyecto VER. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002. 43:608–614.

28. Kempen JH, Mitchell P, Lee KE, et al. The prevalence of refractive errors among adults in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004. 122:495–505.

29. Pericival SPB. High myopia: New definition and the significance of IOL implantation. Eur J Implant Refract Surg. 1986. 3:137–140.

30. Schelenz J, Kammann J. Comparison of contact and immersion techniques for axial length measurement and implant power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1989. 15:425–428.

31. Shammas HJ. A comparison of immersion and contact techniques for axial length measurement. J Am Intraocul Implant Soc. 1984. 10:444–447.

32. Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990. 16:333–340.

33. Sanders DR, Retzlaff JA, Kraff MC, et al. Comparison of the SRK/T formula and other theoretical and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990. 16:341–346.

34. Nawa Y, Ueda T, Nakatsuka M, et al. Accommodation obtained per 1.0 mm forward movement of a posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003. 29:2069–2072.

35. Cazal J, Lavin-Dapena C, Marin J, Verges C. Accommodative intraocular lens tilting. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005. 140:341–344.

36. Jardim D, Soloway B, Starr C. Asymmetric vault of an accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006. 32:347–350.