Single-optic positional accommodating intraocular lenses: a review

Presbyopia is an age-related physiological condition that causes a gradual loss in the ability to focus on near objects, secondary to changes in zonular fibers, ciliary muscle and crystalline lens. Different surgical approaches are being pursued to surgically compensate presbyopia, such as corneal techniques or implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs); however, their inability to restore accommodation has led to the development of single-optic positional accommodative IOLs. The axial shift, with the contraction of the ciliary muscle, of these IOLs increases the refractive power of the eye, improving the level of uncorrected near vision. Single-optic positional accommodative IOLs present few disturbances and larger ocular aberrations that improve near vision. However, reduced amplitudes of accommodation are obtained, little IOL shifts are measured and overall visual outcomes are limited.

Positional accommodative intraocular lens power error induced by the estimation of the corneal power and the effective lens position

Purpose: To evaluate the predictability of the refractive correction achieved with a positional accommodating intraocular lenses (IOL) and to develop a potential optimization of it by minimizing the error associated with the keratometric estimation of the corneal power and by developing a predictive formula for the effective lens position (ELP). Materials and Methods: Clinical data from 25 eyes of 14 patients (age range, 52–77 years) and undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the accommodating IOL Crystalens HD (Bausch and Lomb) were retrospectively reviewed. In all cases, the calculation of an adjusted IOL power (PIOLadj) based on Gaussian optics considering the residual refractive error was done using a variable keratometric index value (nkadj) for corneal power estimation with and without using an estimation algorithm for ELP obtained by multiple regression analysis (ELPadj). PIOLadj was compared to the real IOL power implanted (PIOLReal, calculated with the SRK-T formula) and also to the values estimated by the Haigis, HofferQ, and Holladay I formulas. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between PIOLReal and PIOLadj when ELPadj was used (P = 0.10), with a range of agreement between calculations of 1.23 D. In contrast, PIOLReal was significantly higher when compared to PIOLadj without using ELPadj and also compared to the values estimated by the other formulas. Conclusions: Predictable refractive outcomes can be obtained with the accommodating IOL Crystalens HD using a variable keratometric index for corneal power estimation and by estimating ELP with an algorithm dependent on anatomical factors and age.