In vitro comparative optical bench analysis of a spherical and aspheric optic design of the same IOL model

Tandogan, Tamer; Choi, Chul Young; Liebing, Stephanie; Mayer, Christian; Khoramnia, Ramin

doi:10.1186/s12886-017-0407-5

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2, Table 2), which results from differences in the amount of spherical aberration induced by each model. This impact of spherical aberration on image and visual quality has been reported by many researchers [23][24][25] . Note that the AT LARA features an aberration-neutral design.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Laboratory Analysis and Ray Visualization of Diffractive Optics with Enhanced Intermediate Vision

Son

Łabuz

Khoramnia

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo assess the optical behavior of a new diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and compare its performance to that of an established extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL.MethodsThis study assessed the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX [Eyebright Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China] and the AT LARA 829MP [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany]. An experimental set-up with 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic light (532nm) was used to visualize the IOLs’ ray propagation. In addition, the optical quality of the IOLs was assessed by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at 50lp/mm and 3.0 and 4.5mm apertures on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II [Trioptics GmbH, Germany]. ResultsThe ray propagation of the two IOLs showed two distinct foci. Light intensity assessment revealed that both IOLs allocate more energy to primary than secondary focus. At 3.0mm pupil, the MTF values at 50lp/mm for the primary focus were 0.39 and 0.37, and for the secondary focus, 0.29 and 0.26 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. At 4.5mm pupil, the single-frequency MTF for the primary focus was 0.51 and 0.24 and for the secondary focus 0.21 and 0.15 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively.ConclusionsFrom the optical point of view, the Proming behaved as a low-add bifocal lens; however, its properties did not differ much from the well-established AT LARA EDOF IOL. The AT LARA outperformed the Proming at low defocus (up to 2D), while the latter demonstrated better image quality in the 2-3D range.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Laboratory Analysis and Ray Visualization of Diffractive Optics with Enhanced Intermediate Vision

Son

Łabuz

Khoramnia

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 , Table 2 ), which results from differences in the amount of spherical aberration induced by each model. This impact of spherical aberration on image and visual quality has been reported by many researchers [ 22 – 24 ]. Note that the AT LARA features an aberration-neutral design.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Laboratory analysis and ray visualization of diffractive optics with enhanced intermediate vision

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To assess the optical behavior of a new diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and compare its performance to that of an established extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL. Methods This study assessed the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX [Eyebright Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China] and the AT LARA 829MP [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany]. An experimental set-up with 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic light (532 nm) was used to visualize the IOLs’ ray propagation. In addition, the optical quality of the IOLs was assessed by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at 50lp/mm and 3.0 and 4.5 mm apertures on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II [Trioptics GmbH, Germany]. Results The ray propagation of the two IOLs showed two distinct foci. Light intensity assessment revealed that both IOLs allocate more energy to primary than secondary focus. At 3.0 mm pupil, the MTF values at 50lp/mm for the primary focus were 0.39 and 0.37, and for the secondary focus, 0.29 and 0.26 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. At 4.5 mm pupil, the single-frequency MTF for the primary focus was 0.51 and 0.24 and for the secondary focus 0.21 and 0.15 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. Conclusions When tested with an aberration-free model cornea under monochromatic conditions, the Proming behaved as a low-add bifocal lens; however, its properties did not differ much from the well-established AT LARA EDOF IOL. The AT LARA outperformed the Proming at low defocus (up to 2D), while the latter demonstrated better image quality in the 2-3D range.

show abstract

“…In a young eye, the positive spherical aberration of the cornea is usually offset by the negative spherical aberration of a clear crystalline lens. With increasing age, the negative lenticular spherical aberration becomes gradually positive in relation to cornea's rather stagnant positive value, thereby disrupting the subtle balance of spherical aberration between the cornea and the lens might lead to deteriorated visual quality [29,30]. In 2008, Terwee et al used an experimental set-up to evaluate the ray propagation behavior of different spherical and aspheric intraocular lens models and qualitatively assessed the impact of spherical aberration on their optical quality [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ray propagation imaging and optical quality evaluation of different intraocular lens models

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ray propagation visualization and optical performance analysis of four different intraocular lenses (IOLs) Methods In this laboratory study, four IOLs with different optical designs were assessed: a monofocal AcrySof IQ SN60WF [Alcon], a diffractive-refractive bifocal AcrySof IQ Restor SN6AD1 [Alcon], a diffractive trifocal AcrySof IQ PanOptix TFNT00 [Alcon], and a diffractive extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) Symfony ZXR00 [Johnson&Johnson]. An experimental setup with a water bath containing 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic green laser light (532 nm) was used to visualize the propagation of light rays. Also, the optical performance of the IOLs was evaluated by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at a pupil sizes of 3.0 and 4.5 mm on the optical bench OptiSpheric ® IOL PRO II (Trioptics GmbH, Germany). Results Both the diffractive-refractive bifocal IOL and the EDOF IOL showed two defined foci for distance and near vision. In the diffractive trifocal IOL, three distinct foci for distance, intermediate, and near vision could be visualized. Conclusions The ray propagation visualization technique allows a qualitative assessment and comparison of light energy distribution between different IOL models. The measured Through-Focus Response (TFR) quantitatively confirmed the evaluated ray propagation behavior.

show abstract

In vitro comparative optical bench analysis of a spherical and aspheric optic design of the same IOL model

Cited by 15 publications

References 18 publications

Laboratory Analysis and Ray Visualization of Diffractive Optics with Enhanced Intermediate Vision

Laboratory Analysis and Ray Visualization of Diffractive Optics with Enhanced Intermediate Vision

Laboratory analysis and ray visualization of diffractive optics with enhanced intermediate vision

Ray propagation imaging and optical quality evaluation of different intraocular lens models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About