Impact of light conditions on reading ability following multifocal pseudophakic corrections

Georgios Labiris, Panagiota Ntonti, Eirini-Kanella Panagiotopoulou, Aristeidis Konstantinidis, Maria Gkika, Doukas Dardabounis, Irfan Perente, Haris Sideroudi, Georgios Labiris, Panagiota Ntonti, Eirini-Kanella Panagiotopoulou, Aristeidis Konstantinidis, Maria Gkika, Doukas Dardabounis, Irfan Perente, Haris Sideroudi

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the impact of light intensity and temperature on reading performance following bilateral pseudophakic multifocal presbyopic correction.

Patients and methods: This is a prospective clinic-based trial conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology in the University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Greece. Three groups of patients were formed (G1: patients with bilateral bifocal implantation, G2: patients with bilateral trifocal implantation, and control group: patients with bilateral pseudophakic monofocal implantation). Reading ability was quantified with the Greek version of MNREAD chart with minimal reading speed at 80 words/min for the following light intensities (25, 50, and 75 Foot-Candles [FC]) and temperatures (3,000, 4,000, and 6,000 K). Preferred light conditions for reading were assessed, as well. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03226561.

Results: Control group demonstrated significantly lower reading ability at all light combinations with maximal ability at 75 FC and 6,000 K (0.58±0.18 logMAR). Bifocal group presented a light-dependent reading ability that ranged from 0.45±0.08 logMAR (25 FC and 3,000 K) to 0.40±0.11 logMAR (75 FC and 4,000 or 6,000 K). Trifocal participants presented the best reading ability that was light intensity-independent; however, their performance was reduced at 6,000 K. G1 and G2 preferred primarily intermediate light temperature, while control participants preferred cold light temperature.

Conclusion: Multifocal pseudophakic corrections improve reading ability; however, they present variable efficacy according to the light conditions.

Keywords: Foot-Candles; Kelvin; bifocal; light intensity; presbyopia; trifocal.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Reading ability (3,000 K, 25 FC). Abbreviations: CG, control group; FC, Foot-Candles; G1, Restor group; G2, Panoptix group; K, kelvins.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Reading ability (4,000 K, 75 FC). Abbreviations: CG, control group; FC, Foot-Candles; G1, Restor group; G2, Panoptix group; K, kelvins.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Reading ability (6,000 K, 75 FC). Abbreviations: CG, control group; FC, Foot-Candles; G1, Restor group; G2, Panoptix group; K, kelvins.

References

    1. Lu Q, Congdon N, He X, Murthy GVS, Yang A, He W. Quality of life and near vision impairment due to functional presbyopia among rural Chinese adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(7):4118–4123.
    1. Alió JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Piñero DP, et al. Optical analysis, reading performance, and quality-of-life evaluation after implantation of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(1):27–37.
    1. Labiris G, Ntonti P, Patsiamanidi M, Sideroudi H, Georgantzoglou K, Kozobolis VP. Evaluation of activities of daily living following pseudophakic presbyopic correction. Eye Vis (Lond) 2017;4:2.
    1. Frick KD, Joy SM, Wilson DA, Naidoo KS, Holden BA. The global burden of potential productivity loss from uncorrected presbyopia. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1706–1710.
    1. Chou KL. Combined effect of vision and hearing impairment on depression in older adults: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J Affect Disord. 2008;106(1–2):191–196.
    1. Luo BP, Brown GC, Luo SC, Brown MM. The quality of life associated with presbyopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(4):618–622.
    1. Fisher RF. Presbyopia and the changes with age in the human crystalline lens. J Physiol. 1973;228(3):765–779.
    1. Glasser A. On modeling the causes of presbyopia. Vision Res. 2001;41(24):3083–3087.
    1. Pardue MT, Sivak JG. Age-related changes in human ciliary muscle. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77(4):204–210.
    1. Versteeg FF. Multifocal IOLs for presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(7):1266.
    1. Steinert RF. Visual outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2000;11(1):12–21.
    1. Gil-Cazorla R, Shah S, Naroo SA. A review of the surgical options for the correction of presbyopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(1):62–70.
    1. Labiris G, Patsiamanidi M, Giarmoukakis A, Kozobolis VP. Patient satisfaction and spectacle independence with the iSert multifocal lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2015;25(2):e1–e2.
    1. Weeber HA, Meijer ST, Piers PA. Extending the range of vision using diffractive intraocular lens technology. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(12):2746–2754.
    1. Paschotta Rüdiger. Encyclopedia of Laser Physics and Technology. Wiley-VCH; Berlin: 2008.
    1. Calabrèse A, Cheong AM, Cheung SH, et al. Baseline MNREAD Measures for Normally Sighted Subjects From Childhood to Old Age. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(8):3836–3843.
    1. Fischinger I, Seiler TG, Schmidinger G, Seiler T. Pupil centroid shift: marketing tool or essential clinical parameter? Ophthalmologe. 2015;112(8):661–664.
    1. Labiris G, Giarmoukakis A, Patsiamanidi M, Papadopoulos Z, Kozobolis VP. Mini-monovision versus multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(1):53–57.
    1. Labiris G, Sideroudi H, Rousopoulos K, Kozobolis VP. Cohesive versus dispersive-cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device in torsional intelligent phaco. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(3):681–682.
    1. AcrySof [product information] Fort Worth, TX: Alcon Laboratories, Inc.; 2015.
    1. Lee S, Choi M, Xu Z, Zhao Z, Alexander E, Liu Y. Optical bench performance of a novel trifocal intraocular lens compared with a multifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1031–1038.
    1. Mataftsi A, Bourtoulamaiou A, Haidich AB, et al. Development and validation of the Greek version of the MNREAD acuity chart. Clin Exp Optom. 2013;96(1):25–31.
    1. Goertz AD, Stewart WC, Burns WR, Stewart JA, Nelson LA. Review of the impact of presbyopia on quality of life in the developing and developed world. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(6):497–500.
    1. Kohnen T, Hemkeppler E, Herzog M, et al. Visual outcomes after implantation of a segmental refractive multifocal intraocular lens following cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;191:156–165.
    1. Hütz WW, Eckhardt HB, Röhrig B, Grolmus R. Reading ability with 3 multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32(12):2015–2021.
    1. Gundersen KG, Potvin R. Trifocal intraocular lenses: a comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision provided by two different lens designs. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1081–1087.
    1. Schmickler S, Bautista CP, Goes F, Shah S, Wolffsohn JS. Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(12):1560–1564.
    1. Xu R, Gil D, Dibas M, Hare W, Bradley A. The effect of light level and small pupils on presbyopic reading performance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(13):5656–5664.
    1. Illuminating Engineering Society . The IES Lighting Handbook. 10th edition. Illuminating Engineering Society; New York: 2011.
    1. Te Kulve M, Schlangen L, Schellen L, Souman JL, van Marken Lichtenbelt W. Correlated colour temperature of morning light influences alertness and body temperature. Physiol Behav. 2018;185:1–13.
    1. Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchin J. Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70(1):54–65.
    1. Cataract IOLs; AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® Multifocal; IOLs AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® +2.5 D IOL. [Accessed July 31, 2018]. Available from: .

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere