Vergleich von Dysphotopsieeffekten bei phaken und pseudophaken Augen mit dem neuen Rostock Glare Perimeter

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Pseudophake Dysphotopsien als unerwünschte Begleiterscheinungen nach Kataraktchirurgie gewinnen zunehmend an Bedeutung. Die sogenannte Glare Perimetrie ermöglicht eine realitätsnahe Quantifizierung dieser Phänomene. Der Beitrag stellt die Methode am Beispiel von augengesunden Probanden und pseudophaken Patienten vor.

Patienten und Methoden: Mithilfe der Glare Perimetrie wurden phake und pseudophake Probanden auf Unterschiede in der Blendempfindlichkeit untersucht. Dafür wurden Daten von 60 phaken Personen unterschiedlichen Alters (45 ± 17,1 Jahre) genutzt. Als pseudophake Probanden wurden 31 Monofokallinsen-Träger (70 ± 6,7 Jahre) und 25 Multifokallinsen-Träger (71 ± 8,5 Jahre) getestet.

Ergebnisse: Die Blendempfindlichkeit war in der phaken Gruppe (1,00 ± 0,336°) signifikant kleiner als in der pseudophaken Gruppe (1,56 ± 0,622°). Unter den pseudophaken Augen waren Augen mit einer Multifokallinse (1,69 ± 0,367°) signifikant blendempfindlicher als solche mit einer Monofokallinse (1,43 ± 0,492°).

Schlussfolgerung: Die Glare Perimetrie erlaubt eine objektive Quantifizierung von Dysphotopsieeffekten unter realitätsnahen Bedingungen. Pseudophake Augen zeigen eine höhere Blendempfindlichkeit als Augen mit der natürlichen klaren Linse. Dabei erweisen sich Augen mit Multifokallinsen als besonders empfindlich gegenüber Blendung.

Abstract

Background: Pseudophakic dysphotopsia as unwanted side effect after cataract surgery are becoming increasingly important. The so-called glare perimetry allows a realistic quantification of these phenomena. The article presents the method on the example of healthy subjects and pseudophakic patients.

Patients and Methods: Using glare perimetry phakic and pseudophakic subjects were examined for differences in disability glare. For this, data from 60 phakic persons of different ages (45 ± 17.1 years) were used. As pseudophakic subjects 31 carriers of monofocal lenses (70 ± 6.7 years) and 25 carriers of multifocal lenses (71 ± 8.5 years) were tested.

Results: Disability glare was significantly smaller in the phakic group (1.00 ± 0.336°) than in the pseudophakic group (1.56 ± 0.622°). Among the pseudophakic eyes those with a multifocal lens (1.69 ± 0.367°) were significantly more sensitive to glare than those with a monofocal lens (1.43 ± 0.492°).

Conclusion: Glare perimetry allows an objective quantification of effects of dysphotopsia under realistic conditions. Pseudophakic eyes show a higher sensitivity to glare than eyes with the natural clear lens. Here, eyes with multifocal lenses prove to be particularly sensitive to glare.

• Literatur

• 1 Nadler D. Glare and Contrast Sensitivity in Cataracts and Pseudophakia. In: Nadler M, Miller D, Nadler D, Eds. Glare and Contrast Sensitivity for Clinicians. New York: Springer; 1990: 53-65
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 2 Tester R, Pace NL, Samore M et al. Dysphotopsia in phakic and pseudophakic patients: incidence and relation to intraocular lens type(2). J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 810-816
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Mahar PS. Negative dysphotopsia after uncomplicated phacoemulsification. Pak J Ophthalmol 2013; 29: 53-56
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Meikies D, van der Mooren M, Terwee T et al. Rostock Glare Perimeter: a distinctive method for quantification of glare. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 1143-1148
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Schwiegerling J. Recent developments in pseudophakic dysphotopsia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006; 17: 27-30
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Javitt JC, Wang F, Trentacost DJ et al. Outcomes of cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: functional status and quality of life. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 589-599
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Arens B, Freudenthaler N, Quentin CD. Binocular function after bilateral implantation of monofocal and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 399-404
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Steinert RF, Aker BL, Trentacost DJ et al. A prospective comparative study of the AMO ARRAY zonal-progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 1243-1255
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Holladay JT, Van Dijk H, Lang A et al. Optical performance of multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1990; 16: 413-422
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Gimbel HV, Sanders DR, Raanan MG. Visual and refractive results of multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 881-887 discussion 888
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Rossetti L, Carraro F, Rovati M et al. Performance of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in extracapsular cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994; 20: 124-128
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Maxwell A, Nordan LT. Multifocal intraocular lenses. In: Thorofare NJ, Ed. Current concepts of multifocal intraocular lenses. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 1991
  Google Scholar
• 13 Pieh S, Hanselmayer G, Lackner B et al. Tritan colour contrast sensitivity function in refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 811-815
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Farbowitz MA, Zabriskie NA, Crandall AS et al. Visual complaints associated with the AcrySof acrylic intraocular lens(1). J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 1339-1345
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Ellis MF. Sharp-edged intraocular lens design as a cause of permanent glare. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 1061-1064
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Davison JA. Clinical performance of Alcon SA30AL and SA60 AT single-piece acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28: 1112-1123
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Leaming DV. Practice styles and preferences of ASCRS members–1993 survey. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994; 20: 459-467
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Davison JA. Positive and negative dysphotopsia in patients with acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 1346-1355
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Aust W. [Scattered light in implanted artificial lenses in a model trial]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1986; 188: 69-71
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 van der Heijde GL, Weber J, Boukes R. Effects of straylight on visual acuity in pseudophakia. Doc Ophthalmol 1985; 59: 81-84
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Lachenmayr B, Buser A, Keller O. Sehstörungen als Unfallursache. Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW; 1996
  Google Scholar
• 22 Van Den Berg TJ, Van Rijn LJ, Michael R et al. Straylight effects with aging and lens extraction. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 144: 358-363
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 IJspeert JK, de Waard PW, van den Berg TJ et al. The intraocular straylight function in 129 healthy volunteers; dependence on angle, age and pigmentation. Vision Res 1990; 30: 699-707
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Coroneo MT, Pham T, Kwok LS. Off-axis edge glare in pseudophakic dysphotopsia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 1969-1973
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Kwok LS, Daszynski DC, Kuznetsov VA et al. Peripheral light focusing as a potential mechanism for phakic dysphotopsia and lens phototoxicity. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 119-129
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Maloof AJ, Ho A, Coroneo MT. Influence of corneal shape on limbal light focusing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35: 2592-2598
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Pieh S, Lackner B, Hanselmayer G et al. Halo size under distance and near conditions in refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 816-821
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Arnold PN. Photic phenomena after phacoemulsification and posterior chamber lens implantation of various optic sizes. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994; 20: 446-450
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Masket S, Geraghty E, Crandall AS et al. Undesired light images associated with ovoid intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993; 19: 690-694
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Wallin TR, Hinckley M, Nilson C et al. A clinical comparison of single-piece and three-piece truncated hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 136: 614-619
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Bournas P, Drazinos S, Kanellas D et al. Dysphotopsia after cataract surgery: comparison of four different intraocular lenses. Ophthalmologica 2007; 221: 378-383
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Mellerio J, Palmer DA. Entopic halos. J Physiol 1969; 201: 62P-63P
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Landry RA. Unwanted optical effects caused by intraocular lens positioning holes. J Cataract Refract Surg 1987; 13: 421-423
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Apple DJ, Lichtenstein SB, Heerlein K et al. Visual aberrations caused by optic components of posterior chamber intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1987; 13: 431-435
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 de Vries NE, Franssen L, Webers CA et al. Intraocular straylight after implantation of the multifocal AcrySof ReSTOR SA60D3 diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 957-962
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Hessemer V, Frohloff H, Eisenmann D et al. [Mesoptic vision in multi- and monofocal pseudophakia and in phakic control eyes]. Ophthalmologe 1994; 91: 465-468
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Schmitz S, Dick HB, Krummenauer F et al. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability by halogen light after monofocal and multifocal lens implantation. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 1109-1112
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Eisenmann D, Jacobi FK, Dick B et al. [Glare sensitivity of phakic and pseudophakic eyes]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1996; 208: 87-92
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Hessemer V, Eisenmann D, Jacobi KW. [Multifocal intraocular lenses – an assessment of current status]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1993; 203: 19-33
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar