Glistenings and surface light scattering in intraocular lenses

Werner, Liliana

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.06.003

Cited by 173 publications

(176 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

164

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…"Glistenings". In der Literatur lassen sich besonders viele Beiträge über "Glistenings" bei hydrophoben Acryl-Linsen, insbesondere bei der AcrySof, finden [4,5,9]. "Glistenings" sind aber auch bei anderen IOL-Materialien zu detektieren Eintrübung einer hydrophilen Intraokularlinse 4 Jahre nach Kataraktoperation.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eintrübung einer hydrophilen Intraokularlinse 4 Jahre nach Kataraktoperation

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calcification of hydrophilic intraocular lenses (IOL) is a rare complication. We report about the uneventful replacement of an opacified hydrophilic IOL. The patient presented 4 years after uneventful cataract surgery with a reduction of visual acuity due to calcification of the IOL. Macroscopically, the optic and the haptics were opacified. Light and scanning electron microscopy revealed granular deposits on the external surface of the IOL and numerous fine granular deposits within the optic of the IOL which were distributed in a line parallel to the surface of the IOL.

show abstract

Section: Diskussionunclassified

“…5 9 Die rasterelektronenmikroskopische Aufnahme zeigt multiple Ablagerungen auf der Oberfläche der IOL (Vergr. 1000:1) [9]. Sie können bereits eine Woche nach der Kataraktoperation auftreten [3].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Eintrübung einer hydrophilen Intraokularlinse 4 Jahre nach Kataraktoperation

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four of these studies reported that glistenings had a significant negative effect on the high spatial frequency CS [1][2][3][4] and two studies were non-conclusive [5,6]. While some studies do show a decrease in VA with increased severity of glistenings [6,7] the general consensus in the literature tends to be that visual acuity is unaffected by glistenings [1][2][3]5,[8][9][10][11][12][13]. These studies found no common conclusion concerning the effect of glistenings on measured visual quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of glistenings in intraocular lenses

Mooren¹,

Franssen²,

Piers³

2013

Biomed. Opt. Express

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glistenings consist of multiple microvacuoles in intraocular lenses (IOLs) that cause retinal stray light and may affect quality of vision. For four IOL types, the microvacuole particle size distribution and particle volume density was measured using confocal light microscopy and dark field microscopy, and the corresponding extinction coefficient γ was determined. The light scatter contribution induced by microvacuoles was measured as function of both angle and extinction, and was verified by calculations using Mie theory. Two IOL types possessed significant glistenings having stray light levels higher than that of a healthy 20 year old crystalline lens corresponding to γ ≥ 0.08 mm −1 .

show abstract

“…Montenegro et al 23 showed that the hydrophilic acrylic IOLs induce significantly less straylight than the hydrophobic IOLs. Moreover, the hydrophobic AcrySof material (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.) has a tendency for glistenings 24 -incorporating small inclusions of water and calcium in the open spaced polymer structure. However, the 'defects' caused by glistenings are deemed too small to influence straylight.…”

Section: Straylight Measurements/lapid-gortzak Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Straylight Measurements in Two Different Apodized Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Lapid-Gortzak¹,

Łabuz²,

Meulen³

et al. 2015

J Refract Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

o r I g I n A L A r t I C L e ultifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) were introduced in cataract surgery to address the problem of loss of accommodation following lensectomy and implantation of a monofocal IOL. There have been different multifocal designs, including diffractive bifocal, 1 apodized diffractive, 2 trifocal, refractive, zonal refractive, 1 rotational asymmetric refractive, 3 and accommodating IOLs in which the optic or optics need to move to achieve accommodation. 4 Bifocal diffractive apodized IOLs have a circular pattern on the optic surface, which allows for diffraction of incoming light into two main distinct foci. One focus is for distance vision and the secondary focus is for near vision. The diffraction patterns distribute the light to both foci with loss of energy; approximately 18% of light is directed outside the far and near focal points.2 As a result of multiple foci occurring in the eyeball at the same time and interfering with one another, the contrast sensitivity for both far and near foci decreases. 5In apodized diffractive IOLs, the far focus is dominant and receives more light, whereas the near focus receives less light. 2The patterns of the apodization can differ and not only allow changes in depth of focus with relation to the intensity of light distributed between the far and the near foci, but also changes in induced halos, contrast, and quality of vision with relation to the pupil size as a function of light intensity as part of the accommodative triad response. 6,7 M ABSTRACT PURPOSE: To evaluate differences in straylight between eyes implanted with a hydrophilic multifocal IOL (Seelens MF; Hanita Lenses, Hanita, Israel) and a hydrophobic multifocal IOL (SN6AD1; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX). METHODS:In a prospective cohort study, routinely obtained straylight measurements (C-Quant; Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar, Germany) 3 months after standard phacoemulsification for either cataract or refractive lens procedures were compared. Patients were implanted with either the SeeLens MF IOL or the SN6AD1 IOL. Postoperative straylight values, visual acuity, and refractive outcomes were compared. RESULTS:The SeeLens MF IOL was implanted in 84 eyes and the SN6AD1 IOL in 79 eyes. The difference in straylight was 0.08 (P = .01), with the SeeLens MF IOL having less straylight. Postoperative CDVA was logMAR -0.03 ± 0.06 in the SeeLens MF group, and logMAR -0.02 ± 0.08 in the SN6AD1 group. Mean postoperative refraction was +0.01 ± 0.43 and +0.06 ± 0.35 D, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The Seelens MF IOL showed a straylight of log(s) 0.08 lower than the SN6AD1 IOL. In terms of spherical equivalent and visual acuity the lenses performed equally. More study will aid in understanding the causes and clinical impact of this difference.[J Refract Surg. 2015;31(11):746-751.]

show abstract

Glistenings and surface light scattering in intraocular lenses

Abstract: The author has no financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Cited by 173 publications

References 55 publications

Eintrübung einer hydrophilen Intraokularlinse 4 Jahre nach Kataraktoperation

Eintrübung einer hydrophilen Intraokularlinse 4 Jahre nach Kataraktoperation

Effects of glistenings in intraocular lenses

Straylight Measurements in Two Different Apodized Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About