Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Bojikian,Karine Duarte
Data de Publicação: 2009
Outros Autores: Vita,João Brasil, Forno,Catia Potira Dal, Tranjan Neto,Alfredo, Moura,Christiane Rolim de
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492009000600003
Resumo: PURPOSE: To compare the effect of an apodized diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) (Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM) and its yellow counterpart (Natural IQ TM) on frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry results. METHODS: This study included 37 eyes from 22 patients at the "Centro Oftalmológico Tranjan" who had undergone uncomplicated phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation (17 Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM, 20 Natural IQ TM) performed by the same surgeon, at least three months prior to the study. Patients were subject to frequency doubling technology Matrix Perimeter testing. RESULTS: The patients were between 41 to 79 years old (mean, 70.78 ± 9.83) in the Natural IQ TM and 49 to 81 years old (mean, 67.11± 11.48) in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group, and the mean IOP was 13.64 ± 2.02 mmHg in the Natural IQ TM 12.94 ± 1.39 mmHg in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group. The mean pupillary diameter under scotopic conditions was 6.63 ± 1.16 mm in the Natural IQ TM group and 7.20 ± 1.8 mm in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.20). The mean deviation was -1.83 ± 3.46 dB in the Natural IQ TM group and -1.77 ± 3.94 dB in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.28). The pattern standard deviation was 3.49 ± 0.79 dB in the Natural IQ TM group and 3.20 ± 0.86 dB in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.27). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the results of FDT Matrix perimetry in eyes that received apodized diffractive IOLs implant or eyes that received monofocal intraocular lens implant.
id CBO-2_6d3ca32fbcde443a2b58b9b289454687
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0004-27492009000600003
network_acronym_str CBO-2
network_name_str Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?CataractLenses, intraocularPerimetryGlaucomaLens implantation, intraocularContrast sensibilityPhacoemulsificationPURPOSE: To compare the effect of an apodized diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) (Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM) and its yellow counterpart (Natural IQ TM) on frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry results. METHODS: This study included 37 eyes from 22 patients at the "Centro Oftalmológico Tranjan" who had undergone uncomplicated phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation (17 Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM, 20 Natural IQ TM) performed by the same surgeon, at least three months prior to the study. Patients were subject to frequency doubling technology Matrix Perimeter testing. RESULTS: The patients were between 41 to 79 years old (mean, 70.78 ± 9.83) in the Natural IQ TM and 49 to 81 years old (mean, 67.11± 11.48) in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group, and the mean IOP was 13.64 ± 2.02 mmHg in the Natural IQ TM 12.94 ± 1.39 mmHg in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group. The mean pupillary diameter under scotopic conditions was 6.63 ± 1.16 mm in the Natural IQ TM group and 7.20 ± 1.8 mm in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.20). The mean deviation was -1.83 ± 3.46 dB in the Natural IQ TM group and -1.77 ± 3.94 dB in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.28). The pattern standard deviation was 3.49 ± 0.79 dB in the Natural IQ TM group and 3.20 ± 0.86 dB in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.27). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the results of FDT Matrix perimetry in eyes that received apodized diffractive IOLs implant or eyes that received monofocal intraocular lens implant.Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia2009-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492009000600003Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia v.72 n.6 2009reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)instacron:CBO10.1590/S0004-27492009000600003info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBojikian,Karine DuarteVita,João BrasilForno,Catia Potira DalTranjan Neto,AlfredoMoura,Christiane Rolim deeng2010-01-19T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0004-27492009000600003Revistahttp://aboonline.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpaboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br1678-29250004-2749opendoar:2010-01-19T00:00Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?
title Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?
spellingShingle Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?
Bojikian,Karine Duarte
Cataract
Lenses, intraocular
Perimetry
Glaucoma
Lens implantation, intraocular
Contrast sensibility
Phacoemulsification
title_short Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?
title_full Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?
title_fullStr Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?
title_full_unstemmed Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?
title_sort Does the apodized diffractive intraocular lens Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM interfere with FDT Matrix perimetry results?
author Bojikian,Karine Duarte
author_facet Bojikian,Karine Duarte
Vita,João Brasil
Forno,Catia Potira Dal
Tranjan Neto,Alfredo
Moura,Christiane Rolim de
author_role author
author2 Vita,João Brasil
Forno,Catia Potira Dal
Tranjan Neto,Alfredo
Moura,Christiane Rolim de
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Bojikian,Karine Duarte
Vita,João Brasil
Forno,Catia Potira Dal
Tranjan Neto,Alfredo
Moura,Christiane Rolim de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Cataract
Lenses, intraocular
Perimetry
Glaucoma
Lens implantation, intraocular
Contrast sensibility
Phacoemulsification
topic Cataract
Lenses, intraocular
Perimetry
Glaucoma
Lens implantation, intraocular
Contrast sensibility
Phacoemulsification
description PURPOSE: To compare the effect of an apodized diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) (Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM) and its yellow counterpart (Natural IQ TM) on frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry results. METHODS: This study included 37 eyes from 22 patients at the "Centro Oftalmológico Tranjan" who had undergone uncomplicated phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation (17 Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM, 20 Natural IQ TM) performed by the same surgeon, at least three months prior to the study. Patients were subject to frequency doubling technology Matrix Perimeter testing. RESULTS: The patients were between 41 to 79 years old (mean, 70.78 ± 9.83) in the Natural IQ TM and 49 to 81 years old (mean, 67.11± 11.48) in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group, and the mean IOP was 13.64 ± 2.02 mmHg in the Natural IQ TM 12.94 ± 1.39 mmHg in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group. The mean pupillary diameter under scotopic conditions was 6.63 ± 1.16 mm in the Natural IQ TM group and 7.20 ± 1.8 mm in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.20). The mean deviation was -1.83 ± 3.46 dB in the Natural IQ TM group and -1.77 ± 3.94 dB in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.28). The pattern standard deviation was 3.49 ± 0.79 dB in the Natural IQ TM group and 3.20 ± 0.86 dB in the Acrysof ReSTOR NaturalTM group (p=0.27). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the results of FDT Matrix perimetry in eyes that received apodized diffractive IOLs implant or eyes that received monofocal intraocular lens implant.
publishDate 2009
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2009-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492009000600003
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492009000600003
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S0004-27492009000600003
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia v.72 n.6 2009
reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
instacron:CBO
instname_str Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
instacron_str CBO
institution CBO
reponame_str Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
collection Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv aboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br
_version_ 1754209026034368512