Premium
Comparison of visual function following implantation of Acrysof Natural intraocular lenses with conventional intraocular lenses
Author(s) -
Landers John,
Tan TengHan,
Yuen Joshua,
Liu Henry
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
clinical and experimental ophthalmology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.3
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1442-9071
pISSN - 1442-6404
DOI - 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01434.x
Subject(s) - medicine , ophthalmology , intraocular lenses , intraocular lens , visual acuity , contrast (vision) , optometry , optics , physics
A bstract Background: Recently an intraocular lens (IOL) has been introduced which blocks blue light. As blocking blue light may be to the patient's detriment, this study was designed to evaluate visual function following implantation of a blue‐blocking (Acrysof Natural) IOL. Methods: Patients were recruited for this non‐randomized controlled interventional study, from those attending a private rural ophthalmology clinic for cataract surgery ( n = 93). Only those who had previously had a conventional IOL implanted into one eye were offered an Acrysof Natural IOL for the second eye. Postoperatively patients underwent refracted Snellen visual acuity, contrast sensitivity using a CSV‐1000E instrument and colour vision testing using a Farnsworth D‐15 test, with a subset ( n = 20) undergoing a Farnsworth–Munsell 100‐Hue test. Results were then compared between eyes. Finally, a subset ( n = 63) completed a survey designed to assess the subjective impact of the Acrysof Natural IOL. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between eyes implanted with conventional IOLs compared with Acrysof Natural IOLs for visual acuity ( t = 0.57; P = 0.57), contrast sensitivity ( t = 0.43; P = 0.67 for 3 cycles per degree [cpd], t = 0.56; P = 0.58 for 6 cpd, t = 0.09; P = 0.93 for 12 cpd and t = 0.16; P = 0.87 for 18 cpd) or colour vision with the Farnsworth D‐15 (χ 2 = 0.38; P = 0.55) or the Farnsworth–Munsell 100‐Hue test t = 0.34; P = 0.74). Most subjects reported that they could not tell a difference between the two IOLs subjectively or that any difference experienced was not significant. Conclusion: Our sample did not show any significant differences between eyes implanted with conventional IOLs and the Acrysof Natural IOL. We would suggest that the Acrysof Natural IOL may be used without any significant difference in visual function.