FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2015220391> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2015220391 endingPage "207.e8" @default.
• W2015220391 startingPage "207.e1" @default.
• W2015220391 abstract "Purpose To examine the near visual clinical performance of an accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) when compared with a standard monofocal IOL in a fellow eye comparison. Design Prospective, randomized fellow eye comparison. Methods Thirty patients (60 eyes) with bilateral cataracts but otherwise normal eyes were recruited from a single university hospital cataract waiting list. Patients were randomized to receive either the 1CU accommodative IOL in their first eye or the Acrysof MA30 monofocal IOL. The alternative lens was then implanted in the second eye 4 to 6 weeks later. At all follow-up visits, a full assessment was made of distance, near and reading visual performance, and accommodative amplitude. Results Data are available for all patients at 6 months and 20 patients at 1 year. At 6 months, no difference was found in distance-corrected visual acuity between the two IOLs. Of the 1CU eyes, nine patients (30%) could read J6 or better at a reading speed of 80 words/min or better. In these nine patients, the mean difference in the amplitude of accommodation between the two eyes was 0.71 diopters. Conclusions No measurable variable distinguished eyes that developed functional reading vision from those that did not. The accommodative IOL appears to produce improved near vision in some eyes, but it does not work in all eyes, and in eyes where there is apparent accommodation, there is a discrepancy between subjective reading performance and the modest measured increase of accommodative amplitude. To examine the near visual clinical performance of an accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) when compared with a standard monofocal IOL in a fellow eye comparison. Prospective, randomized fellow eye comparison. Thirty patients (60 eyes) with bilateral cataracts but otherwise normal eyes were recruited from a single university hospital cataract waiting list. Patients were randomized to receive either the 1CU accommodative IOL in their first eye or the Acrysof MA30 monofocal IOL. The alternative lens was then implanted in the second eye 4 to 6 weeks later. At all follow-up visits, a full assessment was made of distance, near and reading visual performance, and accommodative amplitude. Data are available for all patients at 6 months and 20 patients at 1 year. At 6 months, no difference was found in distance-corrected visual acuity between the two IOLs. Of the 1CU eyes, nine patients (30%) could read J6 or better at a reading speed of 80 words/min or better. In these nine patients, the mean difference in the amplitude of accommodation between the two eyes was 0.71 diopters. No measurable variable distinguished eyes that developed functional reading vision from those that did not. The accommodative IOL appears to produce improved near vision in some eyes, but it does not work in all eyes, and in eyes where there is apparent accommodation, there is a discrepancy between subjective reading performance and the modest measured increase of accommodative amplitude." @default.
• W2015220391 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2015220391 creator A5003500770 @default.
• W2015220391 creator A5043635695 @default.
• W2015220391 creator A5052783992 @default.
• W2015220391 creator A5053787096 @default.
• W2015220391 creator A5069317103 @default.
• W2015220391 date "2005-08-01" @default.
• W2015220391 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2015220391 title "Fellow Eye Comparison Between the 1CU Accommodative Intraocular Lens and the Acrysof MA30 Monofocal Intraocular Lens" @default.
• W2015220391 cites W1964339764 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W1983874048 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W1986838265 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W1987026543 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W1994814710 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2001407709 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2006601339 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2016316037 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2024126920 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2028766817 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2044481638 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2045314301 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2053754605 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2061794683 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2082242124 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2127204886 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2145555093 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2154708036 @default.
• W2015220391 cites W2155717938 @default.
• W2015220391 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2005.02.057" @default.
• W2015220391 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15992754" @default.
• W2015220391 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2015220391 type Work @default.
• W2015220391 sameAs 2015220391 @default.
• W2015220391 citedByCount "35" @default.
• W2015220391 countsByYear W20152203912012 @default.
• W2015220391 countsByYear W20152203912013 @default.
• W2015220391 countsByYear W20152203912014 @default.
• W2015220391 countsByYear W20152203912015 @default.
• W2015220391 countsByYear W20152203912017 @default.
• W2015220391 countsByYear W20152203912018 @default.
• W2015220391 countsByYear W20152203912022 @default.
• W2015220391 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2015220391 hasAuthorship W2015220391A5003500770 @default.
• W2015220391 hasAuthorship W2015220391A5043635695 @default.
• W2015220391 hasAuthorship W2015220391A5052783992 @default.
• W2015220391 hasAuthorship W2015220391A5053787096 @default.
• W2015220391 hasAuthorship W2015220391A5069317103 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C157660682 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C259533 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C2778257484 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C2779567214 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C2780225610 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C118487528 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C119767625 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C15744967 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C157660682 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C169760540 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C259533 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C2778257484 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C2779567214 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C2780225610 @default.
• W2015220391 hasConceptScore W2015220391C71924100 @default.
• W2015220391 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2015220391 hasLocation W20152203911 @default.
• W2015220391 hasLocation W20152203912 @default.
• W2015220391 hasOpenAccess W2015220391 @default.
• W2015220391 hasPrimaryLocation W20152203911 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W1966361598 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W1999091358 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W2030469096 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W2032487822 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W2035812164 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W2043992059 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W3028606979 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W3206575234 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W4233009498 @default.
• W2015220391 hasRelatedWork W202679667 @default.
• W2015220391 hasVolume "140" @default.
• W2015220391 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2015220391 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2015220391 magId "2015220391" @default.
• W2015220391 workType "article" @default.