PURPOSE: To compare experimental optical performance in eyes implanted with spherical and aspheric intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Corneal, total, and internal aberrations were measured in 19 eyes implanted with spherical (n=9) and aspheric (n=10) IOLs. Corneal aberrations were estimated by virtual ray tracing on corneal elevation maps, and total aberrations were measured using a second-generation laser ray tracing system. Corneal and total wave aberrations were fit to a Zernike polynomial expansion. Internal aberrations were measured by subtracting corneal from total wave aberrations. Optical performance was evaluated in terms of root-mean-square (RMS) wavefront error and Strehl ratio (estimated from the modulation transfer function). Depth-of-field was obtained from through-focus Strehl estimates from each individual eye. RESULTS: Corneal aberrations increased after IOL implantation, particularly astigmatism and trefoil terms. Third and higher order RMS (and the corresponding Strehl ratio) were significantly better in eyes with aspheric IOLs than with spherical IOLs; however, this tendency was reversed when astigmatism was included. Spherical aberration was not significantly different in eyes with aspheric IOLs, whereas it was significantly positive in eyes with spherical IOLs. Third order aberrations were not significantly different across groups. Depth-of-field was significantly larger in eyes with spherical IOLs. Spherical IOLs showed better absolute optical quality in the presence of negative defocus >1.00 D. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a good degree of compensation of the corneal spherical aberration in eyes implanted with aspheric IOLs, as opposed to eyes implanted with spherical IOLs. Other sources of optical degradation, both with aspheric and spherical IOLs, are non-symmetric preoperative corneal aberrations, incision-induced aberrations, and third order internal aberrations. Although best corrected optical quality is significantly better with aspheric IOLs, tolerance to defocus tended to be lower.
PURPOSE: To compare experimental optical performance in eyes implanted with spherical and aspheric intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Corneal, total, and internal aberrations were measured in 19 eyes implanted with spherical (n=9) and aspheric (n=10) IOLs. Corneal aberrations were estimated by virtual ray tracing on corneal elevation maps, and total aberrations were measured using a second-generation laser ray tracing system. Corneal and total wave aberrations were fit to a Zernike polynomial expansion. Internal aberrations were measured by subtracting corneal from total wave aberrations. Optical performance was evaluated in terms of root-mean-square (RMS) wavefront error and Strehl ratio (estimated from the modulation transfer function). Depth-of-field was obtained from through-focus Strehl estimates from each individual eye. RESULTS: Corneal aberrations increased after IOL implantation, particularly astigmatism and trefoil terms. Third and higher order RMS (and the corresponding Strehl ratio) were significantly better in eyes with aspheric IOLs than with spherical IOLs; however, this tendency was reversed when astigmatism was included. Spherical aberration was not significantly different in eyes with aspheric IOLs, whereas it was significantly positive in eyes with spherical IOLs. Third order aberrations were not significantly different across groups. Depth-of-field was significantly larger in eyes with spherical IOLs. Spherical IOLs showed better absolute optical quality in the presence of negative defocus >1.00 D. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a good degree of compensation of the corneal spherical aberration in eyes implanted with aspheric IOLs, as opposed to eyes implanted with spherical IOLs. Other sources of optical degradation, both with aspheric and spherical IOLs, are non-symmetric preoperative corneal aberrations, incision-induced aberrations, and third order internal aberrations. Although best corrected optical quality is significantly better with aspheric IOLs, tolerance to defocus tended to be lower.
Authors: Jay S Pepose; Mujtaba A Qazi; Keith H Edwards; Jeff P Sanderson; Edwin J Sarver Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Mohammad Taher Rajabi; Sara Korouji; Mahgol Farjadnia; Mohammad Naderan; Mohammad Bagher Rajabi; Bahram Khosravi; Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaie Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: A de Castro; D Siedlecki; David Borja; Stephen Uhlhorn; Jean-Marie Parel; Fabrice Manns; S Marcos Journal: J Mod Opt Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 1.464