Refractive Lens Surgery

More documents

Recommendations

Info

tion to benefiting from less exposure of the retina to blue light, color perception should seem more natural to these patients as opposed to the increased blueness, clinically known as cyanopsia, reported by patients who have received colorless UV-blocking IOLs [38]. 16.6 FDA Clinical Study In order to gain approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a multi-centered, randomized prospective study was conducted in the USA. It involved 300 patients randomized to bilateral implantation of either the AcrySof Natural IOL or the clear AcrySof Single-Piece IOL. One hundred and fifty patients received the AcrySof Natural IOL and 147 patients received the AcrySof Chapter 16 Blue-Light-Filtering Intraocular <strong>Lens</strong>es 155 Fig. 16.4. Data from Alcon’s FDA study showing no significant difference in best corrected visual acuity between the AcrySof colorless IOL and the AcrySof Natural IOL Single-Piece IOL as a control. Patients with bilateral age-related cataracts who were willing and able to wait at least 30 days between cataract procedures and had verified normal preoperative color vision were eligible for the study. In all bilateral lens implantation cases, the same model lens was used in each eye. Postoperative parameters measured included visual acuity, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity, and color perception using the Farnsworth D-15 test. Results showed that there was no difference between the AcrySof Natural IOL and the clear AcrySof IOL in any of these parameters [39] (Figs. 16.4, 16.5, 16.6 and 16.7). More substantial color perception testing using the Farnsworth–Munsell 100 Hue Test has also demonstrated no difference in color perception between the AcrySof Natural IOL and the clear AcrySof IOL [39].
156 R.J. Cionni Fig. 16.7. Data from Alcon’s FDA study showing no significant difference in color perception using the Farnsworth D-15 test between the AcrySof colorless IOL and the AcrySof Natural IOL Fig. 16.5. Data from Alcon’s FDA study showing no significant difference in photopic contrast sensitivity between the AcrySof colorless IOL and the AcrySof Natural IOL Fig. 16.6. Data from Alcon’s FDA study showing no significant difference in mesopic contrast sensitivity between the AcrySof colorless IOL and the AcrySof Natural IOL
Page 2 and 3:
Refractive Lens Surgery I. H. Fine
Page 4 and 5:
Editors I. Howard Fine, MD Mark Pac
Page 6 and 7:
Preface The first recorded time a h
Page 8 and 9:
X Contents Chapter 14 AcrySof ReSTO
Page 10 and 11:
Contributors Jorge L. Alio, MD, PhD
Page 12 and 13:
1 The Crystalline Lens as a Target
Page 14 and 15:
2 CORE MESSAGES Refractive Lens Exc
Page 16 and 17:
na that have been observed with som
Page 18 and 19:
piration through two separate incis
Page 20 and 21:
6 R.S. Hoffman · I.H. Fine · M. P
Page 22 and 23:
8 R.S. Hoffman · I.H. Fine · M. P
Page 24 and 25:
10 R.S. Hoffman · I.H. Fine · M.
Page 26 and 27:
12 M. Packer · I.H. Fine · R.S. H
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
22 J.T. Holladay 4.1 Introduction T
Page 38 and 39:
24 J.T. Holladay but only seven pre
Page 40 and 41:
26 J.T. Holladay from morning to ni
Page 42 and 43:
28 J.T. Holladay 4.3.2.2.3 Corneal
Page 44 and 45:
30 J.T. Holladay rienced this condi
Page 46 and 47:
32 J.T. Holladay many of these pati
Page 48 and 49:
34 J.T. Holladay IOL eRx V 1336 =
Page 50 and 51:
36 J.T. Holladay raised. A more tho
Page 52 and 53:
38 J.T. Holladay rior segment laser
Page 54 and 55:
40 D.D. Koch · L.Wang corneal refr
Page 56 and 57:
42 D.D. Koch · L.Wang Table 5.1. M
Page 58 and 59:
44 D.D. Koch · L.Wang Fig. 5.4. Nu
Page 60 and 61:
46 D.D. Koch · L.Wang Fig. 5.5. Ce
Page 62 and 63:
48 D.D. Koch · L.Wang ∑ Double-K
Page 64 and 65:
50 L.D. Nichamin surgeon the abilit
Page 66 and 67:
52 L.D. Nichamin Table 6.1. The Nic
Page 68 and 69:
54 L.D. Nichamin 3.2 mm, its neglig
Page 70 and 71:
56 L.D. Nichamin Fig. 6.4. The Nich
Page 72 and 73:
58 L.D. Nichamin References 1. Anon
Page 74 and 75:
60 S. Bylsma aphakic state. In cont
Page 76 and 77:
62 S. Bylsma length),underwent full
Page 78 and 79:
64 S. Bylsma K-Astigmatism
Page 80 and 81:
66 S. Bylsma STIOL in the reversed
Page 82 and 83:
68 S. Bylsma about the dynamics at
Page 84 and 85:
8 Correction of Keratometric Astigm
Page 86 and 87:
Fig. 8.2. AcrySof toric IOL implant
Page 88 and 89:
Fig. 8.3. Mean absolute residual cy
Page 90 and 91:
References 1. Hoffer KJ (1980) Biom
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
10 The Eyeonics Crystalens Steven J
Page 100 and 101:
Fig. 10.3. Under binocular conditio
Page 102 and 103:
Fig. 10.6. Anterior movement of the
Page 104 and 105:
Fig. 10.7. One- and 3-year data fro
Page 106 and 107:
10.6 Postoperative Considerations C
Page 108 and 109:
10. Dell SJ (2004) Objective eviden
Page 110 and 111:
100 N.X. Nguyen · A. Langenbucher
Page 112 and 113: 102 N.X. Nguyen · A. Langenbucher
Page 122 and 123: 12 CORE MESSAGES Synchrony IOL H. B
Page 124 and 125: Fig. 12.1. The single-piece silicon
Page 126 and 127: 12.5 Clinical Results Clinical tria
Page 128 and 129: Fig. 12.6. Retroillumination photog
Page 130 and 131: References 1. Fisher RF (1973) Pres
Page 132 and 133: 124 F.M. Sarfarazi 13.1 The Nature
Page 134 and 135: 126 F.M. Sarfarazi Fig. 13.4. Lens
Page 136 and 137: 128 F.M. Sarfarazi Fig. 13.5. Mecha
Page 138 and 139: 130 F.M. Sarfarazi Fig. 13.9. Secon
Page 140 and 141: 132 F.M. Sarfarazi Fig. 13.14. Sche
Page 142 and 143: 134 F.M. Sarfarazi Fig. 13.18. Work
Page 144 and 145: 136 F.M. Sarfarazi References 1. Ma
Page 146 and 147: 138 A. Mirshahi · E.Terzi · T. Ko
Page 152 and 153: 15 The Tecnis Multifocal IOL Mark P
Page 154 and 155: Fig. 15.1. The Alcon AcrySof multif
Page 156 and 157: Fig. 15.4. Multifocal vs. monofocal
Page 158 and 159: 16 Blue-Light-Filtering Intraocular
Page 160 and 161: Fig. 16.2. Cultured human RPE cells
Page 164 and 165: 16.7 Blue-Light-Filtering IOLs and
Page 166 and 167: 15. Marshall J, Mellerio J, Palmer
Page 168 and 169: 17 CORE MESSAGES The Light-Adjustab
Page 170 and 171: Fig. 17.2 a-c. Cross-sectional sche
Page 172 and 173: 17.4 Animal Studies Dr. Nick Mamali
Page 174 and 175: Fig. 17.8. A laser interferogram (l
Page 176 and 177: enhanced visual function that remai
Page 178 and 179: 13. Mather R, Karenchak LM, Romanow
Page 180 and 181: 174 S. Norrby Fig. 18.1. Small cale
Page 182 and 183: 176 S. Norrby Fig. 18.3. Scheimpflu
Page 184 and 185: 178 S. Norrby Fig. 18.4. Schematic
Page 186 and 187: 180 S. Norrby there was fibrin form
Page 188 and 189: 182 S. Norrby material had a Young
Page 190 and 191: 184 S. Norrby Koopmans et al. [28]
Page 192 and 193: 186 S. Norrby 40. De Groot JH, Zuru
Page 194 and 195: 188 L. Nordan · M. Morris regular
Page 196 and 197: 190 L. Nordan · M. Morris produce
Page 198 and 199: 20 CORE MESSAGES Bimanual Ultrasoun
Page 200 and 201: for an irrigating manipulator or ch
Page 202 and 203: 5. Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y
Page 204 and 205: 200 J.L. Alio · A. Galal · J.-L.R
Page 212 and 213:
22 CORE MESSAGES The Infiniti Visio
Page 214 and 215:
Fig. 22.3. The AquaLase handpiece u
Page 216 and 217:
23 CORE MESSAGES The Millennium Ros
Page 218 and 219:
Fig. 23.1. Bausch & Lomb’s new cu
Page 220 and 221:
Fig. 23.2. Advanced flow system car
Page 222 and 223:
Fig. 23.5. Pulse or burst mode with
Page 224 and 225:
24 CORE MESSAGES The Staar Sonic Wa
Page 226 and 227:
Fig. 24.2. The tip undergoes compre
Page 228 and 229:
the sonic tip moves back and forth
Page 230 and 231:
25 CORE MESSAGES AMO Sovereign with
Page 232 and 233:
Fig. 25.3. Schematic diagram of cav
Page 234 and 235:
the Sovereign Compact (see Fig. 25.
Page 236 and 237:
234 M. Packer · R.S. Hoffman · I.
Page 238 and 239:
27 Conclusion: The Future of Refrac
Page 240 and 241:
240 Subject Index Contrast sensitiv
Page 242 and 243:
242 Subject Index P Pachymetry 53,
show all

Refractive Lens Surgery

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?