Functional reading acuity and performance: Comparison of 2 accommodating intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To compare functional reading acuity and speed with 2 models of accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Four of 12 investigative sites in a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical study. METHODS: In this observational study, which was part of an ongoing FDA clinical trial, the MNRead functional reading test was used to compare the reading performance of patients with bilateral Tetraflex IOLs (Group 1) and a consecutive series of patients with bilateral Crystalens IOLs (Group 2) presenting at approximately 1 year postoperatively at 4 ophthalmic practices. The 2 groups were well matched for age, sex, mean postoperative time, and mean level of postoperative corrected distance visual acuity. All examinations were scored at a central reading center. RESULTS: Group 1 comprised 96 patients and Group 2, 55 patients. Patients in Group 1 read better than those in Group 2 at print sizes of 20/63 (P = .004), 20/50 (P = .002), 20/40 (P = .001), 20/32 (P = .003), and 20/25 (P = .001). A statistically significantly higher proportion of patients in Group 1 than in Group 2 read 80 words per minute or more throughout the range of print sizes (P = .002). CONCLUSION: Near reading ability was better with the Tetraflex accommodating IOL than with the Crystalens accommodating IOL at all print sizes between 20/25 and 20/63.

[1]  Wolfgang Radner,et al.  The validity and reliability of short German sentences for measuring reading speed , 2002, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[2]  D. Sanders,et al.  Near visual acuity for everyday activities with accommodative and monofocal intraocular lenses. , 2007, Journal of refractive surgery.

[3]  W. Hütz,et al.  Reading ability with 3 multifocal intraocular lens models , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[4]  M. Leyland,et al.  Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[5]  Murat Dogru,et al.  Early visual results with the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[6]  GORDON E. LEGGE,et al.  Psychophysics of Reading. VIII. The Minnesota Low- Vision Reading Test , 1989, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[7]  Robert Montés-Micó,et al.  Distance and near contrast sensitivity function after multifocal intraocular lens implantation , 2003, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[8]  Gordon E Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision , 2001, Vision Research.

[9]  Donald R Sanders,et al.  Visual performance results after Tetraflex accommodating intraocular lens implantation. , 2007, Ophthalmology.

[10]  G. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading—I. Normal vision , 1985, Vision Research.

[11]  Fred Hendrikse,et al.  Effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses to correct presbyopia after cataract surgery: a randomized controlled trial. , 2004, Ophthalmology.

[12]  S J Anderson,et al.  Night driving: effects of glare from vehicle headlights on motion perception , 1995, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[13]  S. Pieh,et al.  Halo size under distance and near conditions in refractive multifocal intraocular lenses , 2001, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  H. Weghaupt,et al.  Reading performance with a refractive multifocal and a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens , 2002, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[15]  I L Bailey,et al.  The Design and Use of a New Near‐Vision Chart , 1980, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[16]  G S Rubin,et al.  A comprehensive assessment of visual impairment in a population of older Americans. The SEE Study. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  A. Tarkkanen,et al.  Evaluating cataract surgery gains by assessing patients' quality of life using the VF-7. , 1999, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[18]  R. Lindstrom,et al.  Multifocal intraocular lenses , 1990, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  S. Whittaker,et al.  Visual Requirements for Reading , 1993, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[20]  L. Wachtmeister,et al.  The impact of cataract surgery on low vision patients. A population based study. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[21]  K Bandeen-Roche,et al.  Function and visual impairment in a population-based study of older adults. The SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[22]  Richard H. Keates,et al.  Clinical results of the multifocal lens , 1987, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[23]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .