Programm & Abstracts                 "Innovationen in der Augenheilkunde"

Aktuelle Tagungsinformationen
   News and Updates

Anmeldung zur Tagung
   Registration
Hotelbuchung
   Hotel Registration
Grußwort
   Welcome address
Beteiligte Gesellschaften
   Societies involved
Eröffnung des Kongresses
   Opening Ceremony
Preise
   Awards
Wissenschaftliches Programm
   Scientific program
Posterpräsentationen
   Poster Presentation
Kurse
   Courses
Begleitende Veranstaltungen
   Collateral Events
Rahmenprogramm
   Social program
Jubiläumsparty
   Jubilee Party
DOG Information
   DOG Information
Allgemeine Informationen
   General Information
Autorenindex
   Index of Authors
Ausstellerliste
   Exhibitors
Sponsoren
   Sponsors
Teilnahmegebühren
   Registration fees
Impressum



DOG Homepage

Comparison of Photopic and Mesopic Contrast Sensitivity and Glare Disability in Patients with Acrylic, Silicone, Hydrogel and PMMA Intraocular Lenses and in Phakic Controls

1Schmitz K., 1Lindner H., 2Röhl F.-W., 1Behrens-Baumann W.,
1Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Universitäts-Augenklinik (Magdeburg)
2Universität Magdeburg, Institut für Biometrie (Magdeburg)

Purpose: To apply different psychophysical tests to compare contrast sensitivity and glare disability both under photopic and mesopic conditions in patients with cataract and after implantation of intraocular lenses (IOLs) of different materials.
Methods: Of 99 eyes with no ocular pathology than cataract, 79 randomly received intraocular lenses of different materials after uneventful surgery: 20 eyes received hydrophobic acrylic IOLs, 20 silicone IOLs, 20 hydrogel IOLs, and 19 eyes received polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) IOLs. All patients were evaluated using 10 psychophysical function tests in the low-vision laboratory of the University-Eye-Hospital at three to six months postoperatively. Another 20 age-matched patients with only little cataract progression served as phakic controls undergoing the same series of tests.
Results: All patients showed good visual acuity and good photopic contrast sensitivity postoperatively. The results for all tests were worse under mesopic conditions and in the presence of glare sources. Differences between the IOL groups were only marginal in all test settings and reached statistical significance only under very few test specifications. The postoperative patients performed better than the phakic controls in all test subgroups except for glare disability under mesopic conditions.
Conclusions: All tested IOL materials delivered a comparable performance in all applied psychophysical visual function tests. Performance was better under photopic conditions. Future investigations in context with the renewed interest on IOL optic design (sharp edge, edge surface properties) will show, if the problem of poorer performance under mesopic conditions can be overcome.

Zurück/Back