Accommodative intraocular lenses: Current status

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 8-26

  Dick, H Burkhard ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Accommodation; Cataract surgery; Intraocular lens; Intraocular lens movement; Presbyopia; Pseudoaccommodation

Indexed keywords

ACCOMMODATION; BIOMETRY; BIOMICROSCOPY; HUMAN; LENS CAPSULE; LENS IMPLANT; LENS IMPLANTATION; MYDRIASIS; PRESBYOPIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDOPHAKIA; REFRACTIVE SURGERY; REVIEW; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; VISUAL ACUITY;

ACCOMMODATION, OCULAR; CATARACT EXTRACTION; HUMANS; LENS IMPLANTATION, INTRAOCULAR; LENSES, INTRAOCULAR; PRESBYOPIA; PROSTHESIS DESIGN;

EID: 15044358136     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00055735-200502000-00004     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Glasser A, Kaufman PL: The mechanism of accommodation in primates. Ophthalmology 1999; 106:863-872. The accommodative mechanism was experimentally studied in primates using monkeys. Despite the systematic eye movements occurring with electrical stimulation and the nonsystematic eye movements occurring with pharmacologic stimulation, in all instances, the ciliary body and the lens equator moved away from the sciera during accommodation. Movement of the accommodative structures is consistent with the classic mechanism of accommodation described by Helmholtz and contrary to that recently proposed by Schachar.
2. Guthoff R, Ludwig K: Current Aspects of Human Accommodation. Heidelberg: Kaden; 2001.
3. Guthoff R, Ludwig K: Current Aspects of Human Accommodation II. Heidelberg: Kaden; 2003. The book presents the basic facts of accommodation and introduces recent clinical results of new surgical procedures to treat presbyopia. It offers further state-of-the-art information, including controversial discussions about accommodation theories, and practical approaches and techniques of restoring accommodation. It presents a wide selection of theoretical and experimental work by leading specialists in this field.
4. v Heimholtz H: Über die Akkommodation des Auges. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1855; 1:1-74.
5. Croft MA, Glasser A, Kaufman PL: Accommodation and presbyopia. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2001; 41:33-46.
6. Crawford K, Terasawa E, Kaufman PL: Reproducible stimulation of ciliary muscle contraction in the cynomolgus monkey via a permanent indwelling midbrain electrode. Brain Res 1989; 503:265-272.
7. Elder MJ, Murphy C, Sanderson GF: Apparent accommodation and depth of field in pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22:615-619.
8. Niessen AGJE, de Jong LB, van der Heijde GL: Pseudo-accommodation in pseudophakia. Eur J Implant Ref Surg 1992; 4:91-94.
9. Ravalico G, Baccara F: Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1990; 68:604-606.
10. Huber C: Myopic astigmatism as a substitute for accommodation in pseudophakia. Dev Ophthalmol 1981; 5:17-26.
11. Leyland M, Zinicola E: Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review. Ophthalmology 2003; 110:1789-1798.
12. Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Schwenn O, et al. Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology 1999; 106:1878-1886.
13. Lütjen-Decroll E, Tamm E, Kaufman PL: Age changes in rhesus monkey ciliary muscle: light and electron microscopy. Exp Eye Res 1988; 47:885-899.
14. Strenk SA, Semmlow JL, Strenk LM, et al. Age-related changes in human ciliary muscle and lens: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40:1162-1169.
15. Assia EI: Accommodative intraocular lens: a challenge for future development. J Cataract Refract Surg 1997; 23:458-460.
16. Parel JM, Gelender H, Trefers WF, et al. Phaco-Ersatz: cataract surgery designed to preserve accommodation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986; 224:165-173.
17. Nishi O, Hara T, Hayashi F, et al. Further development of experimental techniques for refilling the lens of animal eyes with a balloon. J Cataract Refract Surg 1989; 15:584-588.
18. Nishi O, Hara T, Sakka Y, et al. Refilling the lens with inflatable endocapsular balloon. Dev Ophthalmol 1991; 22:122-125.
19. Holladay JT: Refractive power calculations for intraocular lenses in the phakic eye. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 116:63-66.
20. Hitzenberger CK: Optical measurement of the axial eye length by laser Doppler interferometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32:616-624.
21. Drexler W, Baumgartner A, Findl O, et al. Submicrometer precision biometry of the anterior segment of the human eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38:1304-1313.
22. Drexler W, Hitzenberger CK, Baumgartner A, et al. Investigation of dispersion effects in ocular media by multiple wavelength partial coherence interferometry. Exp Eye Res 1998; 66:25-33.
23. Tehrani M, Krummenauer F, Blom E, et al. Evaluation of the practicality of optical biometry and applanation ultrasound in 253 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:741-746.
24. Tehrani M, Krummenauer F, Kumar R, et al. Comparison of biometric measurements using partial coherence interferometry and applanation ultrasound. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:747-751. The study used 360 eyes to compare axial length measurements assessed by ultrasound biometry and optical biometry. Optical biometry using the IOLMaster resulted in small but statistically and clinically significant differences in axial length than ultrasound in eyes with cataract and normal eyes.
25. Glasser A, Campbell MC: Biometric, optical and physical changes in isolated human crystalline lens with age in relation to presbyopia. Vision Res 1999; 39:1991-2015.
26. Drexler W, Baumgartner A, Findl O, et al. Biometric investigation of changes in the anterior eye segment during accommodation. Vision Res 1997; 37:2789-2800.
27. Oshika T, Mimura T, Tanaka S, et al. Apparent accommodation and corneal wavefront aberration in pseudophakic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43:2882-2886.
28. Verzella F, Calossi A: Multifocal effect of against-the-rule myopic astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes. Refract Corneal Surg 1993; 9:58-61.
29. Wold JE, Hu A, Chen S, et al. Subjective and objective measurement of human accommodative amplitude. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:1878-1888.
30. Whitefoot H, Charman WN: Dynamic retinoscopy and accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1992; 12:8-17.
31. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. Accurate determination of effective lens position and lens-capsule distance with 4 intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24:1094-1098.
32. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. High precision biometry of pseudophakic eyes using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24:1087-1093.
33. Fukuyama M, Oshika T, Amano S, et al. Relationship between apparent accommodation and corneal multifocality in pseudophakic eyes. Ophthalmology 1999; 106:1178-1181.
34. Auffarth GU, Martin M, Fuchs HA, et al. Validity of anterior chamber depth measurements for the evaluation of accommodation after implantation of an accommodative Humanoptics 1CU intraocular lens. Ophthalmologe 2002; 99:815-819.
35. Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Koeppl C, et al. Laserinterferometric measurement of the movement of an "accommodative" intraocular lens. In Current Aspects of Human Accommodation II. Edited by Guthoff R, Ludwig K. Heidelberg: Dr. Reinhard Kaden Verlag; 2003:211-221.
36. Langenbucher A, Huber S, Nguyen NX, et al. Measurement of accommodation after implantation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:677-685.
37. Dick HB, Kaiser S: Dynamic aberrometry during accommodation of phakic eyes and eyes with potentially accommodative intraocular lenses. Ophthalmologe 2002; 99:825-877.
38. Vogel A, Dick HB, Krummenauer F: Reproducibility of optical biometry using partial coherence interferometry: intraobserver and interobserver reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:1961-1968.
39. Hardman Lea SJ, Rubinstein MP, Snead MP, et al. Pseudophakic accommodation? A study of the stability of capsular bag supported, one piece, rigid tripod, or soft flexible implants. Br J Ophthalmol 1990; 74:22-25.
40. Lesiewska-Junk H, Kaluzny J: Intraocular lens movement and accommodation in eyes of young patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26:562-565.
41. Findl O, Kiss B, Petternel V, et al. Intraocular lens movement caused by ciliary muscle contraction. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:669-676.
42. Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Menapace R, et al. Laserinterferometric assessment of pilocarpine-induced movement of an accommodating intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:1515-1521. In this randomized, controlled, patient-masked and examiner-masked trial with intrapatient comparison, the 1 CU intraocular lens showed a small but significant forward movement after application of pilocarpine. The amount of movement, however, resulted in a refractive change of <0.5 diopters in most patients, reaching 1 diopter or slightly more in only single cases, with a large variability of movement. Neither polishing of the capsule nor a posterior capsulorhexis enhanced the accommodative ability.
43. Haefliger E, Parel JM, Fantes F, et al. Accommodation of an endocapsular silicone lens (Phaco-Ersatz) in the nonhuman primate. Ophthalmology 1987; 94:471-477.
44. Hettlich HJ, Lucke K, Asiyo-Vogel MN, 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; 20:115-123.
45. Parel JM, Gelender H, Trefers WF, et al. Phaco-Ersatz: cataract surgery designed to preserve accommodation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986; 224:165-173.
46. Hara T, Sakka Y, Sakanishi K, et al. Complications associated with endocapsular balloon implantation in rabbit eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994; 20:507-512.
47. Hettlich HJ, Lucke K, Asiyo-Vogel M, et al. Experimental studies of the risks of endocapsular polymerization of injectable intraocular lenses. Ophthalmologe 1995; 92:329-334.
48. Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, et al. Aging changes in apparent accommodation in eyes with a monofocal intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135:432-436.
49. Cumming JS, Slade SG, Chayet A, AT-45 Study Group: 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; 108:2005-2009. In a prospective, noncomparative case series, all patients with monocular pseudophakia had BCDVA of 20/40 or better. UCDVA was 20/40 or better in 90% of patients. Ninety-seven percent of patients (60 of 62) had UCNVA of 20/30 or better. No complications or adverse events were reported. The CrystaLens intraocular lens provided patients with useful uncorrected distance, intermediate, and NVA. Important biometric and refractive data were not published.
50. Coleman DJ: On the hydraulic suspension theory of accommodation. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1986; 84:846-868.
51. Coleman DJ, Fish SK: Presbyopia, accommodation, and the mature catenary. Ophthalmology 2001; 108:1544-1551.
52. Doane JF: Accommodating intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004; 15:16-21.
53. Payer H: Ringwulstlinse mit Zoomwirkung zur Verstärkung einer Pseudoakkommodation und deren Erklärung aus erweiterter Akkommodationstheorie. Spektr Augenheilkd 1997; 11:81-89.
54. Küchle M, Langenbucher A, Gusek-Schneider GC, et al. First results of implantation of a new, potentially accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2001; 218:603-608.
55. Küchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, et al. Comparison of 6-month results of implantation of the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens with conventional intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:318-324.
56. Küchle 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; 29:2324-2329.
57. 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; 29:2069-2072.
58. Preussner PR, Wahl J, Lahdo H, et al. Ray tracing for intraocular lens calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:1412-1419.
59. Rana A, Miller D, Magnante P: Understanding the accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:2284-2287.
60. Hara T, Hara T, Yasuda A, et al. Accommodative intraocular lens with spring action-part 1: design and placement in an excised animal eye. Ophthalmic Surg 1990; 21:128-133.
61. Hara T, Hara T, Yasuda A, et al. Accommodative intraocular lens with spring action-part 2: fixation in the living rabbit. Ophthalmic Surg 1992; 23:632-635.
62. McLeod SD, Portney V, Ting A: A dual optic accommodating foldable intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87:1083-1085.
63. Werner L, Pandey SK, Izak AM, et al. Capsular bag opacification after experimental implantation of a new accommodating intraocular lens in rabbit eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30:1114-1123. Fibrosis and anterior capsule opacification in 10 New Zealand white rabbits were almost absent and significantly lower after implantation of the Synchrony intraocular lens compared with the control group.
64. Preussner PR, Wahl J, Gerl R, et al. Akkommodatives Linsenimplantat. Ophthalmologe 2001; 98:97-102.
65. Pallikaris IG, Panagopoulo SI, Siganos CS, et al. Objective measurement of wavefront aberrations with and without accommodation. J Refract Surg 2001; 17:602-607.
66. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. Changes in intraocular lens position after neodymium:YAG capsulotomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25:659-662.
67. Koeppl C, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Pilocarpine induced shift of an "accommodating" intraocular lens: AT-45 CrystaLens. J Cataract Refract Surg, in press. A slight counterproductive backward shift of the CrystaLens of 151 μm (nonpolished group) and 122 μm (polished group) was induced after application of pilocarpine in 45 eyes. Polishing of the capsular bag had no effect on accommodative ability. The reading performance of the CrystaLens tested at 1 and 3 months was significantly different from that of a standard intraocular lens. The median NVA with distance correction 1 month and 3 months postoperatively was found to be J5 and J4, respectively (nonpolished group), and J6 at both times (polished group).
68. Poinoosawmy D, Nagasubramanian S, Brown NA: Effect of pilocarpine on visual acuity and on the dimensions of the cornea and anterior chamber. Br J Ophthalmol 1976; 60:676-679.
69. Stachs O, Martin H, Kirchhoff A, et al. Monitoring accommodative ciliary muscle function using three-dimensional ultrasound. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002; 240:906-912. Three-dimensional ultrasound biomicroscopy allowed assessment of the individual ciliary muscle activity in consideration of the ciliary processes. High-resolution ultrasound showed an activity of the ciliary muscle in young human volunteers and those of presbyopic age.
70. Küchle M, Nguyen NX, Langenbucher A, et al. Implantation of a new accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2002; 18:208-216.
71. Mastropasqua L, Toto L, Nubile M, et al. Clinical study of the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:1307-1312.
72. Vargas LG, Auffarth GU, Becker KA, et al. Performance of the Accommodative 1 CU IOL in relation with capsulorhexis size. J Refract Surg, in press.
73. Horton JC, Jones MR: Warning on inaccurate Rosenbaum cards for testing near vision. Surv Ophthalmol 1997; 42:169-174.
74. Vass C, Menapace R, Schmetterer K, et al. Prediction of pseudophakic capsular bag diameter based on biometric variables. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25:1376-1381.
75. Tehrani M, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, et al. Capsule measuring ring to predict capsular bag diameter and follow its course after foldable intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:2127-2134. The mean capsular bag diameter was 10.53 mm intraoperatively, ranging from 9.65 to 12.00 mm. The capsular bag diameter over time demonstrated a statistically significant shrinkage over a period of 6 months postoperatively. Mean capsular bag diameter was 9.01 mm, ranging from 8.00 to 9.60 mm at 6 months postoperatively. A linear regression formula was presented to calculate capsular bag diameter based on axial length and corneal power.
76. Küchle M, Nguyen NX, Gusek-Schneider GC, et al. Zwei Jahre Erfahrung mit der akkommodativen Hinterkammerlinse 1 CU. Ophthalmologe 2002; 99:820-824.
77. Werblin TP:Discussion of article "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; 108:2010.
78. Schaeffel F: Optical techniques to measure the dynamics of accommodation. In Current Aspects of Human Accommodation II. Edited by Guthoff R, Ludwig K. Heidelberg: Kaden; 2003:71-94. This review provides an overview of optical techniques and instruments along with a description of the respective benefits and potentials, but also pertinent limitations.
79. Dick HB, Gross S, Tehrani M, et al. Refractive lens exchange with Array multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2002; 18:509-518.
80. Hoffman RS, Fine HI, Packer M: Refractive lens exchange as a refractive surgery modality. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004; 15:22-28.
81. Gonzalez F, Capeans C, Santos L, et al. Anteroposterior shift in rigid and soft implants supported by the intraocular capsular bag. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1992; 230:237-239.
82. Kriechbaum K, Findl O, Kiss B, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurement methods in phakic and pseudophakic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:89-94.
83. Lehrer IE, Tetz MR, Dumke K, et al. Refractive lensectomy and accommodating lens implantation in a case of hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:2430-2434. Six months after refractive lens exchange in an eye of short axial length followed by implantation of the accommodative 1 CU with 31.0 diopters, the accommodative range determined by defocusing was 3.00 diopters.