rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:1296-1301 doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.131839
  • Original Article
  • Clinical science

Implantation of the multifocal ReSTOR apodised diffractive intraocular lens in adult anisometropic patients with mild to moderate amblyopia

  1. K Petermeier,
  2. F Gekeler,
  3. M S Spitzer,
  4. P Szurman
  1. University Eye Hospital, Centre for Ophthalmology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr K Petermeier, University Eye Hospital, Centre for Ophthalmology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tuebingen, Schleichstr. 12, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany; katrin.petermeier{at}med.uni-tuebingen.de
  • Accepted 26 April 2008

Abstract

Aim: To assess subjective and objective parameters of visual function after implantation of the AcrySof ReSTOR in amblyopic patients.

Methods: Phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were performed in six eyes of three patients with anisometropic amblyopia. Patients were examined after 16–18 months for uncorrected and distance-corrected visual acuity (VA) for distance, intermediate and near. A defocus curve, the extent of crowding, contrast sensitivity and stereo acuity were recorded.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 56 years (range 53–60). In the non-amblyopic eye, the uncorrected distance VA was 20/25 or better, and the best corrected distance VA was 20/20 or better; in the amblyopic eye, the VA was two to four lines worse. The near VA of the non-amblyopic and the amblyopic eye was equivalent to the distance VA. The defocus curve showed a clear bifocal profile, even in the amblyopic eye. Stereo acuity was found in the Titmus test but not in the random dot tests (Lang-chart and TNO test). All patients had a crowding phenomenon in the amblyopic eye. Binocular contrast sensitivity was within normal limits. Photic phenomena were not reported by any patient, and none of the patients required glasses for any distance, resulting in a high patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: Anisometropic amblyopic patients may benefit from implantation of an AcrySof ReSTOR; no unwanted side effects were detected.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • See Editorial, p 1271

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the ethics committee of the Eberhard-Karls-University, Tübingen.

Relevant Article

This Article

Services

  1. Request permissions

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of BJO.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for BJO. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.