Advertisement

Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: Fyodorov Gradiol

  • Boris Malyugin
  • Tatiana Morozova
  • Valentin Cherednik
Chapter
Part of the Essentials in Ophthalmology book series (ESSENTIALS)

Abstract

Chapter Fyodorov Gradiol: gradient refractive index optics multifocal IOL contains historical and actual information about gradient IOL – theoretical background, laboratory research, functional results of clinical studies and new approaches in the multifocal IOL’s assessment.

Currently available MIOLs have variable refractive power due to the complex shape of anterior and/or posterior surfaces; however, gradient refractive index multifocal lens (GRIN lens) is characterized by varying refractive power due to a change of refractive index in the inner structure of the IOL.

The main advantages of gradient IOL are the following: optics has smooth surfaces which define no need in lens surfaces orientation while implanting; at the same time it diminishes possibility of mechanical trauma, inner components, and surface damage in case of YAG-PCO treatment. It also provides possibility of low incidence of optical phenomena and good visual function at far, near, and intermediate distances under variable illuminance conditions.

The clinical study found high functional results and quality of vision after implantation of new generation Gradiol, high subjective satisfaction, and low incidence of optical phenomena.

Three months after implantation mean uncorrected distance VA was 0.90, mean uncorrected near VA 0.65, mean uncorrected intermediate VA 0.58, mean corrected distance VA 0.98, mean corrected near VA 0.84, and mean corrected intermediate VA 0.78. Mean amplitude of pseudoaccommodation was 4,75°D. Eighty-six percent of patients with Gradiol did not need glasses for daily activities, driving, and reading. Questionnaire revealed optical phenomena in post-op in 5%.

Keywords

Gradient IOL GRIN lens Gradiol MIOL Multifocal IOL Cataract surgery 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

Boris Malyugin, Tatiana Morozova, and Valentin Cherednik have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosen E, Alio JL, Dick HB, et al. Efficacy and safety of multifocal intraocular lenses following cataract and refractive lens exchange: Metaanalysis of peer–reviewed publications. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(2):310–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.01.014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kretz FTA, Gerl M, Gerl R, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new pupil independent diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with a+2.75 D near addition: a European multicenter study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(12):1655–9.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol–2015–306811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attia MS, Khoramnia R, Auffarth GU, et al. Near and intermediate visual and reading performance of patients with a multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lens using an electronic reading desk. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(4):582–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cochener B. Prospective clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2016;32(3):146–51.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x–20160114–01.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kamath GG, Prasad S, Danson A, Phillips RP. Visual outcome with the array multifocal intraocular lens in patients with concurrent eye disease. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:576–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim JS, Jung JW, Lee JM, et al. Clinical outcomes following implantation of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses with varying add powers. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(4):702–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2015.07.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maurino V, Allan BD, Rubin GS, et al. Quality of vision after bilateral multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a randomized trial — AT LISA 809M versus AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(4):700–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Packer M, Chu YR, Waltz KL, et al. Evaluation of the aspheric Tecnis multifocal intraocular lens: one–year results from the first cohort of the food and drug administration clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(4):577–584 e571.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2009.10.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamauchi T, Tabuchi H, Takase K, et al. Comparison of visual performance of multifocal intraocular lenses with same material monofocal intraocular lenses. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e68236.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068236.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang DF. Prospective functional and clinical comparison of bilateral ReZoom and ReSTOR intraocular lenses in patients 70 years or younger. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:934–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cionni RJ, Osher RH, Snyder NE, Nordlund ML. Visual outcome comparison of unilateral versus bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens after cataract extraction: prospective 6–month study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:1033–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alio JL, Pinero DP, AB P–P, Rodrigues Chan MJ. Visual outcomes and optical performance of a monofocal intraocular lens and a new–generation multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:241–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jain IS, Ram J, Bupta A. Early onset of presbyopia. Am J Optom Physiol Optic. 1982;59:1002–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fisher RF. The ciliary body in accommodation. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1986;105:208–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beers AP, van der Heijde GL. Age-related changes in the accommodation mechanism. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73:235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strenk SA, Semmlow JL, Strenk LM, Munoz P, Gronlund–Jacob J, De Marco KJ. Age-related changes in human ciliary muscle and lens: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1162–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schachar RA. Cause and treatment of presbyopia with a method for increasing the amplitude of accommodation. Ann Ophthalmol. 1992;24:445–7, 452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schachar RA. Pathophysiology of accommodation and presbyopia: understanding the clinical implications. J Fla Med Assoc. 1994;81:268–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schachar RA, Black TD, Kash RL, Cudmore DP, Schanzlin DJ. The mechanism of accommodation and presbyopia in the primate. Ann Ophthalmol. 1995;27:58–67.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schachar RA. Is Helmholtz’s theory of accommodation correct? Ann Ophthalmol. 1999;31:10–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glasser A. Can accommodation be surgically restored in human presbyopia? Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:607–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glasser A. Thoughts on surgical correction of presbyopia. In: Refractive surgery: Theses of Subspecialty Day of AAO Annual Meeting. Dallas; 2000. p. 177–80.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garner L, Ooi C, Smith G. Refractive index of the crystalline lens in young and aged eyes. Clin Exp Optom. 1998;81:145–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glasser A, Campbell MC. Presbyopia and the optical changes in the human crystalline lens with age. Vis Res. 1998;38:209–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pierscionek BK. Presbyopia–effect of refractive index. Clin ExpOptom. 1999;73:23–30.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pierscionek B. Refractive index in the human lens. Exp Eye Res. 1997;64:887–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamasaki D, Ong J, Marg E. The amplitude of accommodation in presbyopia. Am J Optom Arch Acad Optom. 1956;33:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Milder B, Ruben ML. Accommodation. In: the fine art of prescribing glasses without making a spectacle of Gainesville: Triad Scientific Publishers; 1978. p. 18–41.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, et al. The VF–14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112(5):630–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haring G, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Weissmantel U, Kroncke W. Subjective photic phenomena with refractive multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses. Results of a multicenter questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:245–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Takhtayev YV, Balashevich LI. Surgical correction of the hypermetropia and presbyopia by refractive–diffractive multifocal pseudoaccomodative IOLs AcrySof Restor. Ophthalmosurgery [Russian]. 2005;3:12–6.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Packard R. Lifestyle considerations for patients bilaterally implanted with a diffractive refractive intraocular lens: Long-term follow-up. Congress of the ESCRS, 24th: Abstracts. London; 2006. p. 113.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dick HB. Experiens with the ReZoom IOL. J Cataract Refract Surg Today. 2005;6.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pieh S, Weghaupt H, Skorpik C. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability with diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:659–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lubiński W, Gronkowska-Serafin J, Podborączyńska-Jodko K. Clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of the Tecnis ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lens. Medical Science Monitor. 2014;20:1220–6.  https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.890585.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davison JA. Positive and negative dysphotopsia in patients with acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26(9):1346–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886–3350(00)00611–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cataract in the adult eye. Preferred practice pattern [internet]. San Francisco, CA: American Academy of Ophthalmology;2011. p. 30. [cited 2017 Sep 19]. Available from: http://bdoc.info/dl/informationen/Cataract–in–the–Adult–Eye–2011–AAO–komplett.pdf
  38. 38.
    Morozova TA. Intraokulyarnaya korrektsiya afakii mul’tifokal’noi linzoi s gradientnoi optikoi. Kliniko–teoreticheskoe issledovanie. [dissertation] Moscow;2006. p. 124. (In Russ)].Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Henderson BA, Geneva II. Negative dysphotopsia: a perfect storm. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(10):2291–312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.09.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hong X, Liu Y, Karakelle M, et al. Ray–tracing optical modeling of negative dysphotopsia. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16(12):125001.  https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3656745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Woodward MA, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(6):992–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.031.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Baykara M, Akova YA, Arslan OS, et al. Visual outcomes at 12 months in patients following implantation of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmol Ther. 2015;4(1):20–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123–015–0032–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Akaishi L, Vaz R, Vilella G, et al. Visual performance of Tecnis ZM900 diffractive multifocal IOL after 2500 implants: a 3–year follow up. J Ophthalmol. 2010;2010:717591.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/717591.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Javitt JC, Steinert RF. Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a multinational clinical trial evaluating clinical, functional, and quality–of–life outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2040–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Roy FH, Tindall R. Multifocal intraocular lens technology and clinical applications. J Ophthalmic Nurs Technol. 1993;12:172–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pearce JL. Multifocal intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1996;7:6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Javitt JC, Wang F, Trentacost DJ, Rowe M, Tarantino N. Outcomes of cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: functional status and quality of life. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:589–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sasaki A. Initial experience with a refractive multifocal intraocular lens in a Japanese population. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:1001–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Slagsvold JE. 3M diffractive multifocal intraocular lens: eight year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:402–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Malyugin B, Morozova T, Cherednik V. Gradient refractive index optics IOL: theoretical background and clinical results. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2014;21:32–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Malyugin
    • 1
  • Tatiana Morozova
    • 2
  • Valentin Cherednik
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Cataract and Implant SurgeryS. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery InstitutionMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Ophthalmology, Institute of Biomedical Problems (BMP), The State Scientific Center of the Russian FederationMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Lobachevsky State UniversityNizhny NovgorodRussia

Personalised recommendations