In vitro optical quality measurements of three intraocular lens models having identical platform

Abstract

BackgroundWith recent advances in technology and introduction of new intraocular lens (IOL) models, surgeons today have the opportunity to choose from various optical designs, which can influence the postoperative quality of vision. In our laboratory study, we compared the optical quality of three different IOLs that use the identical platform and are produced by the same manufacturer. The study included two diffractive multifocal IOLs, a bifocal and a trifocal one, as well as a monofocal IOL.MethodsThree IOL models: monofocal CT ASPHINA 409 M, diffractive bifocal AT LISA 809 M, and diffractive trifocal AT LISA Tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany) were assessed for optical quality by measuring modulation transfer function (MTF) and Strehl Ratio (SR) values at pupil sizes of 3.0 and 4.5 mm on the OptiSpheric® IOL PRO (Trioptics GmbH, Germany). The United States Air Force (USAF) Target images were also recorded to comfirm the optical performance qualitatively.ResultsFor far focus at 50 lp/mm and 3.0 mm pupil size, MTF value of the monofocal lens (MTF = 0.798) was 1.8-fold and 2.1-fold better than the bifocal (MTF = 0.446) and the trifocal (MTF = 0.382) IOLs, respectively. For near focus, bifocal IOL (MTF = 0.265) was 1.4-fold better than trifocal IOL (MTF = 0.187), while for intermediate focus, the trifocal IOL (MTF = 0.148) was 1.7-fold better than the bifocal IOL (MTF = 0.086). For the same pupil size, total sum of light loss amounted to 5.2% for the monofocal, 16.0% for the bifocal and 6.0% for the trifocal IOL. For a larger pupil, the amount of light loss increased significantly for the multifocal IOLs.ConclusionsThe monofocal IOL performed the best for far, the bifocal IOL for near and the trifocal IOL for intermediate focus. While the monofocal IOL created the least amount of light loss for both pupil sizes, the trifocal IOL created less than half the amount of light loss than the bifocal IOL for small pupil. For large pupil, however, less light scatter was observed for the bifocal than the trifocal IOL.

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

“…The optical performance of the IOLs was evaluated using the optical bench OptiSpheric IOL Pro II (Trioptics GmbH, Germany), as described in previous studies [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Its measurement principles adhere to the guidelines governed by the International Standard Organization (ISO) 11979-2 [20] and 11979-9 [21,22] and it thus includes a model cornea (spherical aberration: 0.28 μm) and a model eye containing a balanced salt solution with a refractive index of 1.336 at 25˚C.…”

Laboratory evaluation of the optical properties of two extended-depth-of-focus intraocular lenses

“…For example, the Symfony IOL is composed of a hydrophobic acrylic material and has a refractive index of 1.47 and an Abbe number of 55. Similarly, the optical platform of the AT LARA IOL is based on its predecessors, which is made of hydrophilic-acrylic material with hydrophobic surface properties and has a refractive index of 1.46 and an Abbe number of 56.5 [9]. Furthermore, both EDOF IOLs use diffractive optical principles to effectively reduce the levels of longitudinal chromatic aberration [16,17].…”

“…The initial presbyopia-correcting IOLs were bifocal, providing functional vision at far and near distances [3,6]. The subsequent development of trifocal IOLs allowed visual restoration in intermediate distance as well, enabling patients to use computers or tablets without spectacles [7][8][9]. CA, USA) and the EDOF AT LARA® 829MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) IOLs.…”

Reversible Trifokalität durch das Duett-Verfahren

“…Die Implantation multifokaler Intraokularlinsen (IOL) in den Kapselsack kann Patienten Brillenunabhängigkeit in mehreren Distanzen ermöglichen [13].…”