Glistenings on Intraocular Lenses in Healthy Eyes: Effects and Associations

Colin, Joseph; Orignac, I.

doi:10.3928/1081597x-20110725-01

Cited by 42 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, 6 studies examined the effect of glistenings on CS. 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].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The glistenings formation, as well as the severity of glistenings, has been correlated with longer follow-up times [3,7,10,[24][25][26]. Very few studies that evaluate the progression beyond one year find glistening formation to be stable [5,6]. Temperature fluctuations in the eye are mentioned as one of the factors for this progression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several recent studies, based on large numbers of patients implanted with Acrysof IOLs (≈100 patients or more) conclude that moderate to severe/dense glistenings occur in 60-87% of patients implanted with these lenses [4,5,9,13,24]. The glistenings formation, as well as the severity of glistenings, has been correlated with longer follow-up times [3,7,10,[24][25][26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of glistenings in intraocular lenses

Mooren¹,

Franssen²,

Piers³

2013

Biomed. Opt. Express

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[12][13][14][15] Similarly, five studies have shown decreased contrast sensitivity for the higher spatial frequencies when glistenings are present in the body of the IOL optic, [17][18][19][20][21] and two studies were nonconclusive. 22,23 Despite these studies, general understanding of the implication of these relatively low levels of retinal iovs.arvojournals.org j ISSN: 1552-5783 stray light on visual function is limited and uncertain even in cases when retinal stray light is measured and quantified. 4,[23][24][25] Therefore, in this study, an improved contrast sensitivity test, with and without the presence of a glare source, and a luminance detection threshold test are used to create quantifiable visual performance measures of the impact of retinal stray light.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Degradation of Visual Performance With Increasing Levels of Retinal Stray Light

Mooren

Rosén

Franssen

et al. 2016

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE.To quantify the effect of induced stray light on halo size, luminance threshold, and contrast sensitivity. METHODS.Retinal stray light was induced in five healthy subjects using different photographic filters. The stray light induced ranged from levels observed in intraocular lenses (IOLs) with glistenings (low) to cataract level (high). The visual impact was measured for halo size, luminance detection threshold, and contrast sensitivity with and without a glare source.RESULTS. The amount of retinal stray light induced by the different filters was similar when measured using the psychophysical method and the optical bench method. Low amounts of induced stray light cause the halo size to increase by 21%, the luminance detection threshold to increase by 156%, and contrast sensitivity to decrease by 10% to 21% dependent on spatial frequency and presence of a glare source. The visual impact percentages for high amounts of induced stray light were, respectively, 76%, 2130%, and 30% to 49%. In the presence of a glare source, contrast sensitivity losses were larger and shifted to lower spatial frequencies.CONCLUSIONS. Low levels of retinal stray light can cause significant increases in halo sizes, elevations in luminance detection thresholds, and reductions in contrast sensitivity whether or not a glare source is present.

show abstract

“…However, the 'defects' caused by glistenings are deemed too small to influence straylight. 25 In this study, none of the IOLs showed significant glistenings in the 3 months of follow-up. As a result, glistenings do not seem to play a role in the higher straylight of the hydrophobic lens group.…”

Section: Straylight Measurements/lapid-gortzak Et Almentioning

confidence: 89%

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 on Intraocular Lenses in Healthy Eyes: Effects and Associations

Abstract: In healthy eyes, glistening grade was not associated with contrast sensitivity, CDVA, intraocular light scatter, or any lens or demographic characteristics that were investigated.

Cited by 42 publications

References 16 publications

Effects of glistenings in intraocular lenses

Effects of glistenings in intraocular lenses

Degradation of Visual Performance With Increasing Levels of Retinal Stray Light

Straylight Measurements in Two Different Apodized Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About