Recovery of Accommodative Capabilities of Ocular Pseudophakia

There are considered three modern prospective ways to solve the problem of pseudophakic presbyopia: development of induced anisometropia (monovision), and implantation of accommodative and pseudo-accommodative intraocular lens (IOL).

According to the findings of numerous studies, pseudophakic monovision enables to achieve good results of close-up and distant acuity of vision without correction. However, monovision use involves such limitations as individual intolerance to anisometropia, and the lack of stereoscopic vision.

Despite accommodative IOL have more potential, accommodative effect after the implantation of this type of lens is not always guaranteed. There can be several reasons for that, including inconsistency between IOL diameter and capsular sac diameter, incorrect capsulorrhexis diameter, increased or reduced ciliary muscle contraction, capsular sac fibrosis, synchysis corporis vitrei, posterior vitreous detachment, the change of lens ligament elasticity.

Currently, the use of pseudo-accommodative IOL is the most effective way of pseudophakic presbyopia correction, and among them the most effective ones are bifocal refractive and diffractive IOL. But along with the recognized advantages of the lens, they have a number of disadvantages, e.g. low intermediate vision.

1. Iskakov I.A., Egorova E.V., Korol’kov V.P. Novaya model’ difraktsionno-refraktsionnoy IOL: opticheskie svoystva i pervye klinicheskie rezul’taty. V kn.: Sovremennye tekhnologii kataraktal’noy i refraktsionnoy khirurgii [New model of diffractive and refractive IOL: optical properties and first clinical results. In: Modern technologies of cataract and refraction surgery]. Moscow; 2006; p. 73–78.
2. Koronkevich V.P., Lenkova G.N., Korol’kov V.P. Fotonika — Photonics 2008; 1: 10–13.
3. Hug D. Intraocular lens use in challenging pediatric cases. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2010 Sep; 21(5): 345–349.
4. Buznego C., Trattler W.B. Presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2009 Jan; 20(1): 13–18.
5. Pepose J.S. Maximizing satisfaction with presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: the missing links. Am J Ophthalmol 2008 Nov; 146(5): 641–648.
6. Stürmer J. Cataracts — trend and new developments. Ther Umsch 2009 Mar; 66(3): 167–171.
7. Boerner C.F., Thrasher B.H. Results of monovision correction in bilateral pseudophakes. J Am Intraocul Implant Soc 1984; 10(1): 49–50.
8. Hayashi K., Yoshida M., Manabe S.I., et al. Optimal amount of anisometropia for pseudophakic monovision. J Refract Surg 2011 May; 27(5): 332–338.
9. Greenbaum S. Monovision pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002 Aug; 28(8): 1439–1443.
10. Marques F.F., Sato R.M., Chiacchio B.B., et al. Evaluation of visual performance and patient satisfaction with pseudophakic monovision technique. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2009 Mar–Apr; 72(2): 164–168.
11. Ito M., Shimizu K., Amano R., et al. Assessment of visual performance in pseudophakic monovision. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009 Apr; 35(4): 710–714.
12. Finkelman Y.M., Jonathon Q., Barrett G.D. Patient satisfaction and visual function after pseudophakic monovision. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009 Jun; 35(6): 998–1002.
13. Evans B.J. Monovision: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2007 Sep; 27(5): 417–439.
14. Potop V. Presbyopia — the last major challenge in ocular surgery. Oftalmologia 2008; 52(2): 103–107.
15. Stanojcic N., Wilkins M., Bunce C., et al. Visual fields in patients with multifocal intraocular lens implants and monovision: an exploratory study. Eye (Lond) 2010 Nov; 24(11): 1645–1651.
16. Klaproth O.K., Titke C., Baumeister M., et al. Accommodative intraocular lenses — principles of clinical evaluation and current results. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2011 Aug; 228(8): 666–675.
17. Hettlich H.J., Lucke K., Asiyo-Vogel M., et al. Lens refilling and endocapsular polymerization of an injectable intraocular lens: in vitro and in vivo study of potential risks and benefits. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994 Mar; 20(2): 115–123.
18. Parel J.M., Gelender H., Trefers W.F., et al. Phaco-Ersatz: cataract surgery designed to preserve accommodation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986; 224(2): 165–173.
19. Hara T., Sakka Y., Sakanishi K., et al. Complications associated with endocapsular balloon implantation in rabbit eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994 Sep; 20(5): 507–512.
20. Hettlich H.J., Lucke K., Asiyo-Vogel M., et al. Experimental studies of the risks of endocapsular polymerization of injectable intraocular lenses. Ophthalmologe 1995 Jun; 92(3): 329–334.
21. Haefliger E., Parel J.M. Accommodation of an endocapsular silicone lens (phaco-ersatz) in the aging rhesus monkey. J Refract Corneal Surg 1994 Sep–Oct; 10(5): 550–555.
22. Fine I.H. Perspectives in lens & IOL surgery the SmartLens: A fabulous new IOL technology. Eye World 2004; 23(10): 550–555.
23. Doane J.F. Accommodating intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004 Feb; 15(1): 16–21.
24. Kuchle M., Seitz B., Langenbucher A., et al. Stability of refraction, accommodation, and lens position after implantation of the 1CU accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003 Dec; 29(12): 2324–2329.
25. Preussner P.R., Wahl J., Lahdo H., et al. Ray tracing for intraocular lens calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002 Aug; 28(8): 1412–1419.
26. Nawa Y., Ueda T., Nakarsuka M., et al. Accommodation obtained per 1.0 mm forward of a posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003 Nov; 29(11): 2069–2072.
27. Rana A., Miller D., Magnante P. Understanding the accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003 Dec; 29(12): 2284–2287.
28. McLeod S.D., Portney V., Ting A. A dual optic accommodating foldable intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol 2003 Sep; 87(9): 1083–1085.
29. Preussner P.R., Wahl J., Gerl R., et al. Akkommodatives linsenimplantat. Ophthalmologe 2001; 98(1): 97–102.
30. Werblin T.P. Clinical evaluation of the model AT-45 silicone accommodating intraocular lens: results of feasibility and the initial phase of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Ophthalmology 2001 Nov; 108(11): 2005–2009.
31. Kuchle M., Nguyen N.X., Gusek-Schneider G.C., et al. Two years experience with the new accommodative 1 CU intraocular lens. Ophthalmologe 2002 Nov; 99(11): 820–824.
32. Dick H.B. Accommodative intraocular lenses: current status. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2005 Feb; 16(1): 8–26.
33. McAlinden C., Moore J.E. Multifocal intraocular lens with a surface-embedded near section: Short-term clinical outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011 Mar; 37(3): 441–445.
34. Treushnikov V.M., Cherednik V.I. Vizit k oftal’mologu — Visit to an Ophthalmologist 2008; 10: 4–30.
35. Takhtaev Yu.V., Balashevich L.I. Oftal’mokhirurgiya — Ophthalmosurgery 2004; 3: 30–34.
36. Takhchidi Kh.P., Malyugin B.E., Morozova T.A. Pervye rezul’taty implantatsii mul’tifokal’nykh gradientnykh linz “Gradiol-1” i “Gradiol-2”. V kn.: Sovremennye tekhnologii kataraktal’noy i refraktsionnoy khirurgii [First results of multifocal gradient lens implantation “Gradiol-1” and “Gradiol-2”. In: Modern technologies of cataract and refraction surgery]. Moscow; 2004; p. 296–301.
37. Hoffmann M.B., Spors F., Langenbucher A., et al. Minor effect of blue-light filtering on multifocal electroretinograms. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010 Oct; 36(10): 1692–1699.
38. Auffarth G.U., Rabsilber T.M., Kohnen T., et al. Design and optical principles of multifocal lenses. Ophthalmologe 2008 Jun; 105(6): 522–526.
39. Forte R., Ursoleo P. The ReZoom multifocal intraocular lens: 2-year follow-up. Eur J Ophthalmol 2009 May–Jun; 19(3): 380–383.
40. Cezón Prieto J., Bautista M.J. Visual outcomes after implantation of a refractive multifocal intraocular lens with a +3.00 D addition. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010 Sep; 36(9): 1508–1516.
41. Morozova T.A., Malyugin B.E. Rezul’taty mul’titsentrovykh issledovaniy implantatsii mul’tifokal’noy gradientnoy IOL tret’ego pokoleniya. V kn.: Sovremennye tekhnologii kataraktal’noy i refraktsionnoy khirurgii 2010 [The multicentre study results of third generation multifocal gradient IOL implantation. In: Modern technologies of cataract and refraction surgery 2010]. Moscow; 2010; p. 64–67.
42. Davison U.S. Global results with the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL. In: Congress of the ASCRS. Washington; 2005; р. 44–45.
43. Akaishi L., Vaz R., Vilella G., et al. Visual performance of Tecnis ZM900 diffractive multifocal IOL after 2500 implants: a 3-year follow-up. J Ophthalmol 2010; 5: 2010.
44. Iskakov I.A. Funktsional’nye rezul’taty implantatsii bifokal’noy difraktsiono-refraktsionnoy linzy ″MIOL-Akkord″ v otdalennye sroki. V kn.: Sovremennye tekhnologii kataraktal’noy i refraktsionnoy khirurgii 2007 [Long-term functional results of bifocal diffractive and refractive lens “MIOL-Accord” implantation. In: Modern technologies of cataract and refraction surgery 2007]. Moscow; 2007; p. 102–106.
45. Cherednik V.I. Izvestiya RAEN, ser. Matematika. Matematicheskoe modelirovanie. Informatika i upravlenie — Proceedings of RANS, series Mathematics. Mathematical modeling. Computer technology and management 2004; 8(1–2): 68–86.
46. Chernykh V.V. Glaukoma — Glaucoma 2009; 1: 43–45.
47. Wang W.Y., Wang J., Zhang J., et al. Clinical observation on visual quality in patients implanted with monofocal and multifocal aspheric intraocular lens. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi 2010 Aug; 46(8): 86–690.
48. Lane S.S., Javitt J.C., Nethery D.A., et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes and visual acuity after bilateral implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses with +3.0 diopter addition: multicenter clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010 Nov; 36(11): 1887–1896.
49. Mesci C., Erbil H.H., Olgun A., et al. Differences in contrast sensitivity between monofocal, multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses: long-term results. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2010 Nov; 38(8): 768–777.
50. Ferrer-Blasco T., Madrid-Costa D., Garca-Lázaro S., et al. Stereopsis in bilaterally multifocal pseudophakic patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011 Feb; 249(2): 245–251.
51. Kamlesh M., Dadeya S., Kaushik S. Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. Can J Ophthalmol 2001 Jun; 36(4): 197–201.
52. Leyland M., Langan L., Goolfee F., et al. Prospective randomised double-masked trial of bilateral multifocal, bifocal or monofocal intraocular lenses. Eye 2002; 16(4): 481–490.
53. Nijkamp M.D., Dolders M.G., de Brabander J., et al. Effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses to correct presbyopia after cataract surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology 2004 Oct; 111(10): 1832–1839.
54. Sen H.N., Sarikkola A.U., Uusitalo R.J., et al. Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004 Dec; 30(12): 2483–2493.
55. Guttman С. European study results indicate multifocal IOL mixing, matching is a valuable option: tailoring lens choice based on patient’s needs helps achieve satisfaction, spectacle independence. Ophthalmology Times 2009; 34(1): 20.
56. Lacmanovic -Loncar V., Pavicic-Astalos J., Petric-Vickovic I. Multifocal intraocular “mix and match” lenses. Acta Clin Croat 2008 Dec; 47(4): 217–220.
57. Hütz W.W., Bahner K., Röhrig B., et al. The combination of diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses to provide full visual function after cataract surgery. Eur J Ophthalmol 2010 Mar–Apr; 20(2): 370–375.

Ivonin K.S., Zamyrov А.А., Kudryavtseva Y.V., Chuprov А.D. Recovery of Accommodative Capabilities of Ocular Pseudophakia. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2012; (4): 154