Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity in Pseudophakic patients after Cataract Surgery

Document Type : Research Paper




ntroduction: This study was designed to determine the role of intraocular lens implantation in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in pseudophakic patients.
Material and Methods: This case control study was done in the year 2004 in Mashhad Ophthalmology Center of Khatam- al- Anbia. with convenience sampling method based on object visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in 85 pseudophakic patients (110 eyes) with a mean age of 63.83, and 20 age – matched phakic subjects (40 eyes) were compared. The visual acuity and contrast sensitivity at distance after correction of refractive disorders were measured by Snellen chart and Cambridge Low Contrast grating chart at 6 meter. Individual data, surgery date, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity were gathered in a questionnaire and analyzed by descriptive statistics and frequency distribution tables.
Results: Statistical test showed thatthe best corrected visual acuity in IOL group had no significant difference from that in the phakic group (p=0.36). But the contrast sensitivity reduces in the pseudophakic group comparing with the phakic group (p=0.004). These patients often complain of blur vision, despite of good visual acuity. Contrast sensitivity reduced significantly with increase of age in both groups of normal and pseudophakic patients. No improvement in contrast sensitivity and visual acuity was found over the time (Pva=0.174, Pcs=0.257).
Conclusion: This study showed that intraocular lenses could provide good visual acuity for distance but there was slight reduction in contrast sensitivity. Contrast sensitivity test is an important tool for evaluation of visual function; especially age related changes or intraocular differences, which may not have been detected by visual acuity tests.


1- Javit J, Brauwesles HP, Jacobi KW, etal. Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation:
Clinical, Functional, and quality –of-life outcomes: multicenter clinical trial in Germany and Austria. J Cataract
Refract Surg 2000; 26: 1356-1366
2- Bellows JG: Biochemistry of the lens: influence of vitamine salfhydryis on the production of galactose cataract ,
Arch . Ophthalmol. 1993; 16:762
3- Montes-Mico R, Alio J. Distance and near contrast sensitivity function after multifocal intraocular lens
implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:703 – 711
4- Montes-Mico R, Charman WN. Mesopic contrast sensitivity function after excimer laser photorefractive
keratomy. J Refract Surg 2002; 18: 9-13
5- Sasaki A. Initial experience with refractive multifocal intraocular lens in a Japanese population. J Cataract Refract
Surg 2000; 26: 1001-1007
6- Teping C, Oran E , Backes – Teping C. Visual acuity at twilight and contrast vision in patients with bifocal IOL.
Ophthalmol 1994 Aug ; 91 (4) : 460-4
7- Hurst MA , Douthwaite WA. Assessing vision behind cataract a review of methods. 1993; 70:903-913
8- Regan D, Neima D. Low contrast letter chart as a test of visual functions. Ophthalmol 1983; 90: 1192-120
9- Hayashi K, Hayashi H , Nakao F , Hayashi F. Influence of astigmatism on multifocal and monofocal intraocular
lense. Am J Ophthalmol 2000 oct; 130 (4): 477-82
10- Supestein R, Boyaner D, Overbury O , Collin C. Glare disability and contrast sensitivity before and after
cataract surgery. J Cataract Surg 1997; 23: 248-253
11- American Academy of ophthalmology optics, Refraction, and contact lenses. LEO.1998.
12- Grosvenor, T. Primary Care optometry. 3 rd ed. Butter worth Heineman; 1996.14.
13- Wilkins AJ, Della Salas, Somazzi L,and Nimmo –Smith I. Age – related norms for the Cambridge Low contrast
Gratings, including details concerning their desing and use . Clin Vis Sci 1988; 2(3):201-212
14- kershner RM. Retinal image contrast and functional visual performance with aspheric, silicon and acrylic IOL.
Prospective evaluation. J cataract Refract surg. 2003 sfp; 29 (9) ; 1684 – 94
15- Afsar AJ, Patel S , wood SRL , Wykes W. A comparison of visual performance between a rigid PMMA a
foldable acrylic IOL. Eye 1999 Jun; 13 (pt 301): 329-35
16- Montes –Mico R, Espana E, Bueno I, Charman WN , Menezo JL.Visual performance with multifocal IOL.
Mesopic C.S under distance and near condition. Ophthalmol 2004 Jan; 11 (1): 85-96
17- Alfonsa JF, Fernodez-Vega L, Begona-Baamonda M, Montes-Mico Robert. Correlation of pupil size with visual
acuity and contrast sensitivity after implanation of an apodized diffractive intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2007;
18- Negishi k , Ohnuma k , Hirayama N , Noda T . Policy – Based Medical services network study Group for IOL &
Refraction surgery. Effect of chromatic aberation on contrast sensitivity in pseudophakic eye. Arch Ophthalmol
2001 Aug; 119 (8): 1154-8
19- kohnen S, Ferrer A, Brauweiler P.Visual function in pseudophakic eyes with polymetyle methacrylate , Silicon
and acrylic IOL.J Cataract Refract Surg 1996 ; 22 suppl 2: 1303-7
20- Mela Ek, Gartaganis SP, Koliopoulos JX. Contrast Sensitivity function after cataract extraction and
intraocularlens implantation. Doc ophthalmol 1996-97; 92 (2): 79-91
21- Miyajima H , katsumio , Ogawa T, Guang JW. Contrast visual acuities in cataract patients. II. After IOL
implantation. Acta ophthalmol (copenh) 1992 Aug; 70 (4): 427-33
22- Paker M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS.Wavefront technology in cataract surgery. Dregon Heath & Science university ,
Eugene , oregon , USA. Curr Opin Ophtalmol 2004 Feb ; 15 (1): 56-60
23- Souza CE, Gereneta VM, Chaltia MR, etal. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, reading speed and wavefront
analysis, Pseudophakic eye with multifocal IOL (ReSTOR) versus fellow Phakic eye in non-presbyopic patients. J
Refract Surg 2006; 22:303-305