Comparison of the optical and visual quality of poly(methyl methacrylate) and silicone intraocular lenses

Abstract

We evaluated experimentally the optical quality of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (Storz 68UV, AMO PC58) and silicone (AMO SI19, Adatomed 90D) intraocular lenses (IOLs) and compared the results with our clinical data. We measured surface and image quality using the Zygo laser interferometer and modulation transfer function (MTF) using the Ealing EROS MTF analyzer. Contrast acuity was tested clinically with glare and without glare (Regan charts); AMO PC58, n = 18; AMO SI19, n = 7; Adatomed 90D, n = 18). Modulation transfer function and image quality were slightly better with PMMA IOLs but the reduction of MTF with silicone lenses was within the 1/8 diopter defocus range. Surface quality of silicone IOLs was superior to that of PMMA IOLs. Contrast acuity measured clinically was also slightly better with PMMA IOLs at low contrast and with glare but differences were not significant. Our results suggest that optical and visual quality of silicone IOLs is slightly lower than with PMMA IOLs. Experimental and clinical results correlated closely. However, the small differences observed are unlikely to be significant clinically.

Optomechanical eye model with imaging capabilities for objective evaluation of intraocular lenses

“…This image can then be analyzed with standard optical methods to recover PSF, MTF, or aberration coefficients for different pupil sizes, as done in other studies. 1,2,4,5,8,30 All these quantities completely characterize the linear optical behavior of the eye model, thus allowing immediate and homogeneous comparison of IOLs with equal dioptric power and different material or design features.…”

“…The only quantitative data available are in the form of modulation transfer function (MTF) plots that manufacturers sometimes include in the IOL technical data sheet, however, without uniformity of test conditions, and, moreover, without a direct link to a sound index for the quality of vision. At the same time, few reports give a comparative optical characterization of some IOLs, [1][2][3][4][5] and in a few cases they are limited to an analysis of the optical quality of the lenses. [6][7][8][9] On the other hand, many clinical studies have evaluated and compared the visual outcomes in large patient populations after lens extraction and IOL implantation.…”

Visual performance of acrylic and PMMA intraocular lenses

“…19 Skorpik et al compared in-the-bag implanted PMMA IOLs with sulcus implanted silicone IOLs and found no statistically significant difference in any luminance level under mesopic conditions. 19,20 After the introduction of foldable acrylic lenses, Kohnen et al 8 compared the visual functions of various IOLs, and the difference between PMMA and acrylic intraocular lenses was found to be statistically insignificant for contrast sensitivity.…”

A Retrospective Analysis of Five Intra-Ocular Lenses and the Predictive Value of Six Different Intra-Ocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas

“…The foldable lenses give a better control on the early postoperative refraction and visual acuity of the patient and as a consequence a better patient satisfaction [7, 8]. However, to establish an accurate predictive refractive and visual outcome, the personalized corrected A constant or the surgeon factor of each lens is of great importance.…”