Accommodating intraocular lenses: a review of design concepts, usage and assessment methods

REFERENCES

• Vision 2020. The Cataract Challenge. Comm Eye Health 2000; 13: 17–19.
   Google Scholar
• Sparrow JM. Cataract surgical rates: is there an overprovision in certain areas? Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91: 852–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apple DJ, Peng Q, Ram J. The 50th anniversary of the intraocular lens and a quiet revolution. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 1861–1862.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen T. Improved accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation with the Zeiss IOL master. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007; 85: 84–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menapace R, Findl O, Kreichbaum K, Leydolt‐koeppl C. Accommodating intraocular lenses: a critical review of present and future concepts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007; 245: 473–489.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasser A. Restoration of accommodation: surgical options for correction of presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 2008; 91: 279–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schor CM, Charles F. Prentice Award Lecture 2008: Surgical correction of presbyopia with intraocular lenses designed to accommodate. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 1028–1041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millodot M. Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science, 6th ed. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Helmhotz H. Uber die akkommodation des auges. Arch Ophthalmol 1855; 1: 1–74.
   Google Scholar
• Gilmartin B. The aetiology of presbyopia: a summary of the role of lenticular and extralenticular structures. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995; 15: 431–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strenk SA, Semmlow JL, Strenk LM, Munoz P, Gronlund‐jacob J, De marco JK. Age‐related changes in human ciliary muscle and lens: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 1162–1169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman WN. The eye in focus: accommodation and presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 2008; 91: 207–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croft MA, Glasser A, Kaufman PL. Accommodation and presbyopia. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2001; 41: 33–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koretz JF, Kaufman PL, Neider MW, Goeckner PA. Accommodation and presbyopia in the human eye: aging of the anterior segment. Vision Res 1989; 29: 1685–1692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atchison DA, Markwell EL, Kasthurirangan S, Pope JM, Smith G, Swann PG. Age‐related changes in optical and biometric characteristics of emmetropic eyes. J Vis 2008; 8: 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koretz JF, Handleman GH. Modeling age‐related loss in the human eye. Math Mod 1986; 7: 1003–1014.
   Google Scholar
• Sakabe I, Oshika T, Lim SJ, Apple DJ. Anterior shift of zonular insertion into the anterior surface of human crystalline lens with age. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 295–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atchison DA. Accommodation and presbyopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995; 15: 255–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasser A, Campbell MCW. Biometric, optical and physical changes in the isolated human crystalline lens in relation to presbyopia. Vision Res 1999; 39: 1991–2015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher RF, Pettet BE. Presbyopia and the water content of the human crystalline lens. J Physiol 1973; 234: 443–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher RF. Elastic constants of the human lens capsule. J Physiol 1969; 201: 1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman WN. Restoring accommodation to the presbyopic eye: how do we measure success? J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 2251–2254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardue MT, Sivak JG. Age‐related changes in human ciliary muscle. Optom Vis Sci 2000; 77: 204–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacskulin A, Gast R, Bergmann U, Guthoff R. Ultrasound biomicroscopy imaging of accommodative configuration changes in the presbyopic ciliary body. Ophthalmologe 1996; 93: 199–203.
   Google Scholar
• Stachs O, Martin H, Kirchhoff A, Stave J, Terwee T, Guthoff R. Monitoring accommodative ciliary muscle function using three‐dimensional ultrasound. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002; 240: 906–912.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strenk SA, Strenk LM, Guo S. Magnetic resonance imaging of aging, accommodating, phakic, and pseudophakic ciliary muscle diameters. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 1792–1798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niessen AGJE, De jong LB, Van der heijde GL. Pseudoaccommodation in pseudophakia. Eur J Implant Refract Surg 1992; 4: 91–94.
   Google Scholar
• Langenbucher A, Seitz B, Huber S, Nguyen NX, Kuchle M. Theoretical and measured pseudophakic accommodation after implantation of a new accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121: 1722–1727.
   Google Scholar
• Betman JW. Apparent accommodation in aphakic eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 1950; 33: 921–928.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakoa F, Hayashi F. Aging changes in apparent accommodation in eyes with a monofocal intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135: 432–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakazawa M, Ohtsuki K. Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes after implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 1983; 96: 435–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elder MJ, Murphy C, Sanderson GF. Apparent accommodation and depth of field in pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22: 615–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber C. Myopic astigmatism as a substitute for accommodation in pseudophakia. Dev Ophthalmol 1981; 5: 17–26.
   Google Scholar
• Vezella F, Calossi A. Mulitifocal effect of against‐the‐rule myopic astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes. Refract Corneal Surg 1993; 9: 58–61.
   Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN, Gupta N, Naroo SA, Gibson GA, Mihashi T, Shah S. Investigating the mechanism of action of the Tetraflex KH3500 accommodative intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2010; 26: [Epub ahead of print] doi.10.3928/1081597X‐20100114‐04.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sippel KC, Jain S, Azar DT. Monovision achieved with Excimer laser refractive surgery. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2001; 41: 91–101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reilly CD, Lee WB, Alvarenga L, Caspar J, Garcia‐ferrer F, Mannis MJ. Surgical monovision and monovision reversal in LASIK. Cornea 2006; 25: 136–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinciguerra P, Nizzola GM, Nizzola F, Ascari A, Azzolini M, Epstein D. Zonal refractive keratectomy for presbyopia. J Refract Surg 1998; 14: S218‐S221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauerberg JM. Centred vs. inferior off‐centre ablation to correct hyperopia and presbyopia. J Refract Surg 1999; 15: 66–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz OF, Bayraktar S, Agca A, Yilmaz B, Mcdonald MB, Van de pol C. Intracorneal inlay for the surgical correction of presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 1921–1927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leyland M, Zinicola E. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 1789–1798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Percival SP, Setty SS. Prospectively randomized trial comparing the pseudoaccommodation of the AMO ARRAY multifocal lens and a monofocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993; 19: 26–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossetti L, Carraro F, Rovati M, Orzalesi N. Performance of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in extracapsular cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994; 20: 124–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamlesh, Dadeya S, Kaushik S. Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. Can J Ophthalmol 2001; 36: 197–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: 2040–2048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen ED, Burton RL, Webber SK, Haaskjold E, Sandvig K, Jyrkkïo H, Leite E et al. Comparison of a diffractive bifocal and a monofocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22: 446–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dick HB. Accommodative intraocular lenses: current status. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2005; 16: 8–26.
   Google Scholar
• Koopmans SA, Terwee T, Glasser A, Wendt M, Vilipuru AS, Van kooten TG, Norrby S et al. Accommodative lens refilling in rhesus monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 2976–2984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishi O, Nishi K. Accommodation amplitude after lens refilling with injectable silicone by sealing the capsule with a plug in primates. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 1358–1361.
   Google Scholar
• Nishi O, Nakai Y, Yamada Y, Mizumoto Y. Amplitudes of accommodation of primate lenses refilled with two types of inflatable endocapsular balloons. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111: 1677–1684.
   Google Scholar
• Nishi Y, Mireskandari K, Khaw P, Findl O. Lens refilling to restore accommodation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 374–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barclay L. Accommodating intraocular lenses allow near and far vision: a newsmaker interview with J. Stewart Cumming. Medscape Medical News 2003 [cited 11 January 2010] Available online at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465867.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenfield M, Cohen AS. Repeatability of clinical measurements of the amplitude of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1996; 16: 247–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrin LA, Glasser A. Accommodation measurements in a prepresbyopic and presbyopic population. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30: 1435–1444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathews S. Scleral expansion surgery does not restore accommodation in human presbyopia. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 873–877.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langenbucher A, Huber S, Nguyen NX, Seitz B, Gusek‐schneider GC, Kuchle M. Measurement of accommodation after implantation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 677–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Gusek‐schneider GC, Martus P, Nguyen NX. Comparison of 6‐month results of implantation of the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens with conventional intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 318–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dick HB, Kaiser S. Dynamic aberrometry during accommodation of phakic eyes and eyes with potentially accommodative intraocular lenses [German]. Ophthalmologe 2002; 99: 825–877.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolffsohn JS, Hunt OA, Naroo S, Gilmartin B, Shah S, Cunliffe IA, Benson MT et al. Objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics with the 1‐CU accommodative intraocular lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 1230–1235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Menapace R, Koeppl C, Sacu S, Wirtitsch M, Buehl W et al. Laser interferometric assessment of pilocarpine‐induced movement of an accommodating intraocular lens: a randomized trial. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 1515–1521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauder G, Degenring RF, Kamppeter B, Hugger P. Potential of the 1 CU accommodative intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89: 1289–1292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prabakaran S, Dirani M, Chia A, Gazzard G, Fan Q, Leo SW, Ling Y et al. Cycloplegic refraction in preschool children: comparisons between the hand‐held autorefractor, table‐mounted autorefractor and retinoscopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009; 29: 422–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorge J, Queiros A, Gonzalez‐meijome J, Fernandes P, Almeida JB, Parafita MA. The influence of cycloplegia in objective refraction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005; 25: 340–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitefoot H, Charman WN. Dynamic retinoscopy and accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1992; 12: 8–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutstein RP, Fuhr PD, Swiatocha J. Comparing the amplitude of accommodation determined objectively and subjectively. Optom Vis Sci 1993; 70: 496–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt OA, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B. Evaluation of the measurement of refractive error by the PowerRefractor: a remote, continuous and binocular measurement system of oculomotor function. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87: 1504–1508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blade PJ, Candy TR. Validation of the PowerRefractor for measuring human infant refraction. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 346–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheppard AL, Davies LN. Clinical Evaluation of the Grand Seiko Auto Ref/ Keratometer WAM‐5500. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2010; 30: 143–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallen EAH, Wolffsohn JSW, Gilmartin B, Tsujimura S. Clinical evaluation of the Shin‐Nippon SRW‐5000 autorefractor in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001; 21: 101–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcbrien N, Millodot M. Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R‐1. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1985; 62: 786–792.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davies LN, Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B. Clinical evaluation of the Shin‐Nippon NVision‐K 5001/Grand Seiko WR‐5100 K autorefractor. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 320–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibos LN. Principles of Hartmann‐Shack aberrometry. J Refract Surg 2000; 16: S563‐S565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platt BC, Shack R. History and principles of Shack‐Hartmann wavefront sensing. J Refract Surg 2001; 17: S573‐S577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez P, Navarro R, Gonzalez L, Hernandez JL. Accuracy and reproducibilty of Zywave, Tracey, and experimental aberrometers. J Refract Surg 2004; 20: 810–817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirshahi A, Buhren J, Gerhardt D, Kohnen T. In vivo and in vitro repeatability of Hartmann‐Shack aberrometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 2295–3001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findl O, Leydolt C. Meta‐analysis of accommodating intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 522–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auffarth GU, Martin M, Fuchs HA, Rabsilber TM, Becker KA, Schmack I. Validity of anterior chamber depth measurements for the evaluation of accommodation after implantation of an accommodative Humanoptics 1CU intraocular lens [German]. Ophthalmologe 2002; 99: 815–819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancox J, Spalton DJ, Heatley G, Jayaram H, Marshall J. Objective measurement of intraocular lens movement and dioptric change with a focus shift accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 1098–1003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findl O, Kiss B, Petternel V, Menapace R, Georgopoulos M, Rainer G, Drexler W. Intraocular lens movement caused by ciliary muscle contraction. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 669–676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuchle M, Nguyen NX, Langenbucher A, Gusek‐schneider GC, Seitz B, Hanna KD. Implantation of a new accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2002; 18: 208–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies LN, Gibson GA, Sheppard AL, Wolffsohn JS. In vivo biometric evaluation of phakic and pseudophakic eyes during accommodation with optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: E‐Abstract 3777.
   Google Scholar
• Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU. Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyzer for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 807–810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ. A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 949–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcleod SD, Portney V, Ting A. A dual optic accommodating foldable intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87:1083–1085.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriechbaum K, Findl O, Koeppl C, Menapace R, Drexler W. Stimulus‐driven versus pilocarpine‐induced biometric changes in pseudophakic eyes. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 453–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasser A. Restoration of accommodation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006; 17: 12–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uthoff D, Holland D, Hepper D, Gulati A, Koch L, Haigis W. Laser interferometric measurements of accommodative changes in the position of an optic‐shift intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2009; 25: 416–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koeppl C, Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Drexler W. Comparison of pilocarpine‐induced and stimulus‐driven accommodation in phakic eyes. Exp Eye Res 2005; 80: 795–800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buznego C, Trattler WB. Presbyopia‐correcting intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2009; 20: 13–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming JS, Colvard DM, Dell SJ, Doane J, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Packer M et al. Clinical evaluation of the Crystalens AT‐45 accommodating intraocular lens: results of the US Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 812–825.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doane JF, Jackson RT. Accommodative intraocular lenses: considerations on use, function and design. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2007; 18: 318–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepose JS. Design strategies for new accommodating IOLs. Cataract Refract Surg Today 2009; 9: 39–45.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman DJ. On the hydraulic suspension theory of accommodation. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1986; 84: 846–868.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cumming JS. Performance of the crystalens. Author reply. J Refract Surg 2006; 22: 633–634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koeppl C, Findl O, Menapace R, Kriechbaum K, Wirtitsch M, Buehl W, Sacu S et al. Pilocarpine‐induced shift of an accommodating intraocular lens: AT‐45 Crystalens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 1290–1297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stachs O, Schneider H, Beck R, Guthoff R. Pharmacological‐induced haptic changes and the accommodative performance in patients with the AT‐45 accommodative IOL. J Refract Surg 2006; 22: 145–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchini G, Pedrotti E, Sartori P, Tosi R. Ultrasound biomicroscopic changes during accommodation in eyes with accommodating intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30: 2476–2482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macsai MS, Padnick‐silver L, Fontes BM. Visual outcomes after accommodating intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 628–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown D, Dougherty P, Gills JP, Hunkeler J, Sanders DR, Sanders ML. Functional reading acuity and performance: comparison of 2 accommodating intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 1711–1714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenstec. How the Tetraflex is designed to use the natural accommodation process 2009 [cited 10 March 2010] Available online at: http://www.lenstec.com/lenstec/tf_accom_process.html.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders DR, Sanders ML. Visual performance results after Tetraflex accommodating intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1679–1684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Martus P, Nguyen NX. Stability of refraction, accommodation and lens position after implantation of the 1CU accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 2324–2329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastropasqua L, Toto L, Nubile M. Clinical study of the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 1307–1312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heatley CJ, Spalton DJ, Hancox J. Fellow eye comparison between the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens and the Acrysof MA30 monofocal intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 140: 207–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dogru M, Honda R, Omoto M, Toda I, Fujishima H, Arai H, Matsuytama M et al. Early visual results with the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 895–902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legeais J‐M, Werner L, Werner L, Abenhaim A, Renard G. Pseudoaccommodation: BioComFold versus a foldable silicone intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 262–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dick HB. Single optic accommodative intraocular lenses. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2006; 19: 107–124.
   Google Scholar
• Hara T, Yasuda A, Yamada Y. Accommodative intraocular lens with spring action. Part 1. Design and placement in an excised animal eye. Ophthalmic Surg 1990; 21: 128–133.
   Google Scholar
• Hara T, Yasuda A, Mizumoto Y, Yamada Y. Accommodative intraocular lens with spring action. Part 2: Fixation in the living rabbit. Ophthalmic Surg 1992; 23: 632–635.
   Google Scholar
• Sarfarazi FM. Sarfarazi dual optic accommodating intraocular lens. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2006; 19: 125–128.
   Google Scholar
• Visiogen. Visiogen achieves full enrolment of Synchrony subjects in its Phase III clinical trial. 2007 [cited 1 March 2010] Available online at: http://www.visiogen.com/pressreleases/Phase%20III%release.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mcleod SD, Vargas LG, Portney V, Ting A. Synchrony dual‐optic accommodating intraocular lens. Part 1: Optical and biomechanical principles and design considerations. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 37–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ossma I, Galvis A, Vargas LG, Trager M, Vagefi M, Mcleod SD. Synchrony dual‐optic accommodating intraocular lens. Part 2: Pilot clinical evaluation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 47–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarfarazi FM. Sarfarazi elliptical accommodative intraocular lens for small incision surgery. United States Patent Application 10201615 (2002) [cited 10 March 2010]. Available online at http://www.google.co.uk/patents?q=sarfarazi+lens.
   Google Scholar
• Mcdonald JP, Croft MA, Vinje E, Glasser A, Heatley GA, Kaufman PL, Sarfarazi FM. Sarfarazi elliptical accommodating intraocular lens in rhesus monkey eyes in vitro and in vivo. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: E‐Abstract 256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton IM, Dixit SM, Summers LJ, Avicola K, Wilhelmsen J. Diffractive Alvarez lens. Optics Letters 2000; 25: 1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermans EA, Terwee TT, Koopmans SA, Dubbelman M, Van der heijde RGL, Heethar RM. Development of a ciliary muscle‐driven accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 2133–2138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancox J, Spalton DJ, Heatley CJ, Jayaram H, Yip J, Boyce J, Marshall J. Fellow‐eye comparison of posterior capsular opacification rates after implantation of 1CU accommodating and AcrySof MA30 monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 413–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey S. Posterior capsule opacification. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006; 17: 45–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen NX, Seitz B, Reese S, Langenbucher A, Kuchle M. Accommodation after Nd: YAG capsulotomy in patients with accommodative posterior chamber lens 1CU. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005; 243: 120–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta N, Wolffsohn JS, Naroo SA. Comparison of near visual acuity and reading metrics in presbyopia correction. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 1401–1409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saiki M, Negishi K, Dogru M, Yamaguchi T, Tsubota K. Biconvex posterior chamber accommodating intraocular lens implantation after cataract surgery: long‐term outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36: 603–608.
   Google Scholar
• Schor CM, Bharadwaj SR, Burns CD. Dynamic performance of accommodating intraocular lenses in a negative feedback control system: a simulation‐based study. Comput Biol Med 2007; 37: 1020–1035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Küchle M. Stability of refraction, accommodation, and lens position after implantation of the 1CU accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 29: 2324–2329.
   Google Scholar
• Preussner P‐R, Wahl J, Gerl R, Kreiner C, Serester A. Accommodative lens implant. Ophthalmologe 2001; 98: 97–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menapace R. Pre‐loaded shift IOL systems: Concepts and first clinical experiences [German]. Proceedings of the 19th annual meeting of the DGII; 2005; Feb 18–19. Magdeburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Ben‐nun J, Alió JL. Feasibility and development of a high‐power real accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 1802–1808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alió JL, Ben‐nun J, Rodriguez‐prats JL, Plaza AB. Visual and accommodative outcomes 1-year after implantation of an accommodating intraocular lens based on a new concept. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 1671–1678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfonso JF, Carones F, Cionni RJ, Claoue C, Cochener B, Goes FJ, Pepose JS et al. Accommodating and light‐adjustable technologies. Cataract Refract Surg Today Eur 2010 January: 47–48 [cited 17 March 2010]. Available online at: http://www.bmctoday.net/crstodayeurope/pdfs/euro0110_accommodating.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson M. What's next in accommodative IOLs? Rev Ophthalmol 2006; 13 [cited 10 March 2010] Available online at http://www.revophth.com/index.asp?page=1_874.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Ho A, Erickson P, Manns F, Pham DT, Parel J‐M. Theoretical analysis of accommodation amplitude and ametropia correction by varying refractive index in Phaco‐Ersatz. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 405–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bethke W. A sneak peek into the IOL pipeline. Rev Ophthalmol. 2007; 14 [cited 17 March 2010] Available online at http://www.revophth.com/index.asp?page=1_13613.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Comander J, Pineda R. Accommodating intraocular lenses: theory and practice. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2010; 50: 107–117.
   Google Scholar
• Pepose JS. Maximising satisfaction with presbyopia‐correcting intraocular lenses: the missing links. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 146: 641–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell SJ. Cataract and refractive lens exchange questionnaire. 2010: [cited 10 January 2010] Available online at http://www.crstoday.com/Pages/patientQ.php.
   Google Scholar
• Duane A. Normal values of the accommodation at all ages. J Am Med Assoc 1912; 59: 1010.
   Google Scholar
• Millodot M, Millodot S. Presbyopia correction and the accommodation in reserve. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1989; 9: 126–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maloof A, Neilson G, Milverton EJ, Pandey SK. Selective and specific targeting of lens epithelial cells during cataract surgery using sealed‐capsule irrigation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 1566–1568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maloof A, Pandey SK, Neilson G, Milverton EJ. Selective death of lens epithelial cells using demineralized water and Trition X‐100 with PerfectCapsule sealed capsule irrigation; a histological study in rabbit eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 2005; 123: 1378–1384.
   Google Scholar