Effect of interface reflection in pseudophakic eyes with an additional refractive intraocular lens

Schrecker, Jens; Zoric, Katja; Messner, A.; Eppig, Timo

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.03.039

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the R parameter strongly depends on the refractive index difference between two media. 21,22 So, because the refractive index of the aqueous humor remains constant, the higher the refractive index of an IOL, the stronger the interface reflects the light. For instance, one AcrySof IOL (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) with a high refractive index of 1.55 would have a reflectance of 1.1%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, one would expect that the visual function of patients with polypseudophakia is not affected by interface reflections because the estimated R coefficient was lower than that of an Acrysof IOL, a commonly implanted, singular IOL with a high refractive index. Schrecker et al 22 studied internal reflections in a two-IOL configuration using a ray-tracing model. They concluded that supplementary IOLs do not produce glare symptoms that could be relevant to a patient's visual function compared with conventional single-lens implantation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21 Given the nearly normal incidence of the light at the first IOL surface, we could neglect that the reflection coefficient changes with light polarization. 22 Thus, a simplified formula was used:…”

Section: Light Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trifocality Achieved Through Polypseudophakia: Optical Quality and Light Loss Compared With a Single Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Łabuz¹,

Knorz²,

Son³

et al. 2020

J Refract Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ince the first monocular sequential implantation of two intraocular lenses (IOLs) in 1993, 1 polypseudophakia has gained in popularity. However, it was not without complications, especially in the early years when two posterior chamber IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag. 2-6 This approach was used with success to correct refractive error, 1,7 but it was quickly recognized that it also increases the risk of hyperopic shift and interlenticular opacification. 2-4 It was suggested by David Apple and others that these postoperative complications could be overcome by implanting the anterior of the two IOLs in the ciliary sulcus. Only the primary lens would be located posteriorly in the bag. 2,4 However, because capsular ABSTRACT PURPOSE: To compare the optical performance of a twointraocular lens (IOL) system with that of a single capsular bag trifocal IOL. METHODS: The two-IOL configuration of a monofocal RayOne Aspheric (Rayner Intraocular Lenses, Ltd) and a Sulcoflex Trifocal (Rayner Intraocular Lenses, Ltd) lens was compared in vitro with a single-lens option (RayOne Trifocal; Rayner Intraocular Lenses, Ltd). Two samples of each IOL model were studied with an optical metrology device. The optical quality was assessed using the area under the modulation transfer function (MTF). The impact of the supplementary lens misalignment on the MTF was tested. The light loss was also measured using a power meter. RESULTS: The two-IOL system produced three well-defined focal peaks comparable to those of the single lens. The MTF area of the single-and two-IOL configuration was, respectively, 22.5 and 20.7 at far, 16.4 and 15.4 at intermediate, and 14.9 for each configuration at near. A moderate decentration (up to 0.6 mm) had a minimal effect at intermediate and near on the supplementary lens MTF and no impact at far. A 5° tilt did not alter the MTF. The supplementary lens caused a 1.3% decrease in the optical power. CONCLUSIONS: The optical quality of the two-IOL system matched that of the single trifocal lens. A low-power supplementary IOL demonstrated high tolerance to misalignment and minimal light attenuation. The reversibility of the two-IOL approach may prove advantageous clinically.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trifocality Achieved Through Polypseudophakia: Optical Quality and Light Loss Compared With a Single Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Łabuz¹,

Knorz²,

Son³

et al. 2020

J Refract Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 Previous studies in vitro showed that the optical quality provided by the piggyback system is similar to that provided by a unique IOL, for both monofocal and multifocal IOLs. Schrecker et al 19 compared the surface reflections in a pseudophakic model eye with and without a monofocal add-on IOL and concluded that monofocal add-on IOL implantation did not induce relevant additional disturbing glare compared to conventional pseudophakia. Artigas et al 20 used an artificial eye simulating in vivo conditions of the anterior chamber to measure the modulation transfer function of a piggyback system integrated by a monofocal IOL plus a bifocal IOL of zero power and +3.75 D of addition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Add-On Sulcus-Based Versus Primary In-the-Bag Multifocal Intraocular Lens: Intraindividual Study

Muñoz¹,

Albarrán-Diego²,

Belda³

et al. 2014

J Refract Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, we adopted the Liou-Brennan model eye used in our previous studies [28–30] including the decentered pupil. There are various model eyes available for optical simulation which can be customized to individual biometric properties [31].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vignetting and Field of View with the KAMRA Corneal Inlay

Langenbucher

Goebels

Szentmáry

et al. 2013

BioMed Research International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. To evaluate the effect of the KAMRA corneal inlay on the retinal image brightness in the peripheral visual field. Methods. A KAMRA inlay was “implanted” into a theoretical eye model in a corneal depth of 200 microns. Corneal radius was varied to a steep, normal, and flat (7.37, 7.77, and 8.17 mm) version keeping the proportion of anterior to posterior radius constant. Pupil size was varied from 2.0 to 5.0 mm. Image brightness was determined for field angles from −70° to 70° with and without KAMRA and proportion of light attenuation was recorded. Results. In our parameter space, the attenuation in brightness ranges in between 0 and 60%. The attenuation in brightness is not affected by corneal shape. For large field angles where the incident ray bundle is passing through the peripheral cornea, brightness is not affected. For combinations of small pupil sizes (2.0 and 2.5 mm) and field angles of 20–40°, up to 60% of light may be blocked with the KAMRA. Conclusion. For combinations of pupil sizes and field angles, the attenuation of image brightness reaches levels up to 60%. Our theoretical findings have to be clinically validated with detailed investigation of this vignetting effect.

show abstract

Effect of interface reflection in pseudophakic eyes with an additional refractive intraocular lens

Abstract: Findings indicate that implantation of monofocal add-on IOLs will not induce relevant additional disturbing glare compared with conventional pseudophakia.

Cited by 17 publications

References 21 publications

Trifocality Achieved Through Polypseudophakia: Optical Quality and Light Loss Compared With a Single Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Trifocality Achieved Through Polypseudophakia: Optical Quality and Light Loss Compared With a Single Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Add-On Sulcus-Based Versus Primary In-the-Bag Multifocal Intraocular Lens: Intraindividual Study

Vignetting and Field of View with the KAMRA Corneal Inlay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About