The effects of posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis on contrast sensitivity

Abstract

Purpose We aimed at evaluating the effects of posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (PCCC) on contrast sensitivity. Materials and methods In this prospective, randomized, bilateral clinical study, 40 eyes of 20 patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery were included. The phacoemulsification machine, viscoelastic substances, surgical tools, and intraocular lenses (IOLs) were the same for both eyes. The only difference was that we conducted the PCCC procedure before IOL implantation to one of the eyes of the patients. The selection of the eye that underwent the PCCC procedure was decided randomly. Results The mean photopic contrast sensitivity values at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd (cycles per degree) were 41.55, 59.90, 61.25, 32.35, and 9.75, respectively, and for the control group these values were 39. 05, 56.60, 57.95, 29.80, and 8.75, respectively. The mean mesopic contrast sensitivity values at special frequencies of 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd were 41.20, 54.75, 55.55, 31.70, and 9.00, respectively, and for the control group these values were 38.35, 51.70, 52.15, 30.05, and 8.00, respectively. The mean contrast sensitivity values of the eyes that underwent the PCCC procedure were slightly better than the fellow eyes at all spatial frequencies, but the difference was statistically insignificant (P40.05). Conclusions In early post-operative period, the PCCC procedure exerts some positive effects on contrast sensitivity although these effects are statistically insignificant.

Comparación de dos test psicofísicos de sensibilidad al contraste en un entorno clínico

“…Sin embargo, aunque se conoce los beneficios de la FSC y existe toda una variedad de sistemas comerciales de medición, su uso no ha sido ampliamente incluido en la rutina clínica. Esto explica que en la última década hubiera un renovado interés en la FSC (Colombo, Santillán, Aguirre, & Issolio, 2007;Ginsburg, 2003;Owsley, 2003), evaluando diferentes test para la clínica (Bozkurt et al, 2010;Itoh, Sagawa, Okamoto, Mitani, & Yoshida, 2007;Kaiserman, Hazarbassanov, Varssano, & Grinbaum, 2004;Leat & Wegmann, 2004;Montes-Mico & Charman, 2002;Quesnel, Lovasik, Ferremi, Boileau, & Ieraci, 2004) algunos de ellos orientados específicamente al diagnóstico de cataratas o glaucoma (Ginsburg, 2006;Onal, Yenice, Cakir, & Temel, 2008;Pesudovs, Hazel, Doran, & Elliott, 2004;Tochel, Morton, Jay, & Morrison, 2005).…”