Back to Freepaper Session

Straylight (disability glare) results in case of a diffractive multifocal IOL design with apodization pattern adjusted to reduce glare

Session Details

Session Title: IOL Technology

Session Date/Time: Sunday 06/10/2013 | 16:30-18:30

Paper Time: 17:29

Venue: Auditorium (First Floor)

First Author: : R.Lapid-Gortzak THE NETHERLANDS

Co Author(s): :    J. van der Linden   I. van der Meulen   T. van den Berg        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To evaluate the differences in straylight between eyes implanted with hydrophilic apodized diffractive multifocal IOL (Seelens MF, Hanita, Israel) and hydrophobic apodized diffractive multifocal IOLs (ReSTOR, Alcon, USA). The 2 lens types have different apodization patterns, in which in the newer lens type the pattern has been adjusted in an effort to reduce halos and glare from the diffractive rings. This study seeks to evaluate the effect on straylight of this adjustment in apodization.

Setting:

Private refractive surgery clinic, Driebergen, and the Netherlands’ Institute for Neurosciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Methods:

Straylight measurements obtained as part of the routine ophthalmological evaluation at 3 months postoperatively after standard phacoemulsification procedures for either cataract or refractive lens procedures were evaluated and compared. Patients were implanted with either the SeeLens MF or BunnyLens MF(Hanitalenses, Israel) a multifocal hydrophilic apodized diffractive IOL, or the SN6AD1 IOL (Alcon, USA). Postoperative straylight values, visual acuity, and refractive outcomes were compared.

Results:

In 34 eyes a SeeLens MF or a BunnyLens MF (with the identical optic design, and different haptic design) was implanted. In 50 eyes the SN6AD1 was implanted. The difference in straylight between the Hanita lenses and the SN6AD1 was 0.09461 (p<0.01) , with the SeeLens/BunnyLens types having less straylight. In terms of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) the SeeLens / BunnyLens group improved from logMAR 0.05 + 0.08 (range: 0.3 to 0) to logMAR 0.00 + 0.04 (range: 0.1 to -0.1). In the SN6AD1 group the CDVA improved from logMAR 0.05 + 0.08 (0.4 to -0.1) to logMAR 0.01+ 0.05 (0.2 to -0.1). Refraction changed from preoperatively +1.36 D + 1.99 (-3.88 to +5.75 D) to +0.08 D + 0.52 (-1.38 to +1.25D) postoperatively in the SeeLens / BunnyLens group, and from +0.35 D + 2.71 (range : -10.75 to +6.00 D) preoperatively to +0.08 D + 0.32 (-0.75 to +0.88 D) postoperatively in the SN6AD1 group.

Conclusions:

A mean difference in straylight of 0.09461 log (s) was found between the SeeLens/BunnyLens types and the SN6AD1, in favor of the SeeLens/BunnyLens type, the hydrophilic IOLs. Clinically, a mean difference of 0.1 log(s) is comparable to 1 line on the visual acuity chart. In terms of postoperative CDVA and spherical equivalent refraction, the lenses performed equally well. These lenses differ in: material – hydrophilic versus hydrophobic, in UV filters – surface chromophores versus blue-blocking filters, and in the pattern of apodization. The last seems to be the primary difference related to difference in straylight. More study is needed to completely understand the cause of the difference and its clinical impact.

Financial Interest:

... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company