Jit B Ale1, Fabrice Manns, Arthur Ho. 1. Vision Cooperative Research Centre, Sydney, Australia Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia. jeetopt@yahoo.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: Using an analytical approach of paraxial optics, we evaluated the magnification of a model eye implanted with single-element (1E) and dual-element (2E) translating-optics accommodative intraocular lenses (AIOL) with an objective of understanding key control parameters relevant to their design. Potential clinical implications of the results arising from pseudophakic accommodation were also considered. METHODS: Lateral and angular magnifications in a pseudophakic model eye were analyzed using the matrix method of paraxial optics. The effects of key control parameters such as direction (forward or backward) and distance (0 to 2 mm) of translation, power combinations of the 2E-AIOL elements (front element power range +20.0 D to +40.0 D), and amplitudes of accommodation (0 to 4 D) were tested. Relative magnification, defined as the ratio of the retinal image size of the accommodated eye to that of unaccommodated phakic (rLM(1)) or pseudophakic (rLM(2)) model eyes, was computed to determine how retinal image size changes with pseudophakic accommodation. RESULTS: Both lateral and angular magnifications increased with increased power of the front element in 2E-AIOL and amplitude of accommodation. For a 2E-AIOL with front element power of +35 D, rLM(1) and rLM(2) increased by 17.0% and 16.3%, respectively, per millimetre of forward translation of the element, compared to the magnification at distance focus (unaccommodated). These changes correspond to a change of 9.4% and 6.5% per dioptre of accommodation, respectively. Angular magnification also increased with pseudophakic accommodation. 1E-AIOLs produced consistently less magnification than 2E-AIOLs. Relative retinal image size decreased at a rate of 0.25% with each dioptre of accommodation in the phakic model eye. The position of the image space nodal point shifted away from the retina (towards the cornea) with both phakic and pseudophakic accommodation. CONCLUSION: Power of the mobile element, and amount and direction of the translation (or the achieved accommodative amplitude) are important parameters in determining the magnifications of the AIOLs. The results highlight the need for caution in the prescribing of AIOL. Aniso-accommodation or inter-ocular differences in AIOL designs (or relative to the natural lens of the contralateral eye) may introduce dynamic aniseikonia and consequent impaired binocular vision. Nevertheless, some designs, offering greater increases in magnification on accommodation, may provide enhanced near vision depending on patient needs.
PURPOSE: Using an analytical approach of paraxial optics, we evaluated the magnification of a model eye implanted with single-element (1E) and dual-element (2E) translating-optics accommodative intraocular lenses (AIOL) with an objective of understanding key control parameters relevant to their design. Potential clinical implications of the results arising from pseudophakic accommodation were also considered. METHODS: Lateral and angular magnifications in a pseudophakic model eye were analyzed using the matrix method of paraxial optics. The effects of key control parameters such as direction (forward or backward) and distance (0 to 2 mm) of translation, power combinations of the 2E-AIOL elements (front element power range +20.0 D to +40.0 D), and amplitudes of accommodation (0 to 4 D) were tested. Relative magnification, defined as the ratio of the retinal image size of the accommodated eye to that of unaccommodated phakic (rLM(1)) or pseudophakic (rLM(2)) model eyes, was computed to determine how retinal image size changes with pseudophakic accommodation. RESULTS: Both lateral and angular magnifications increased with increased power of the front element in 2E-AIOL and amplitude of accommodation. For a 2E-AIOL with front element power of +35 D, rLM(1) and rLM(2) increased by 17.0% and 16.3%, respectively, per millimetre of forward translation of the element, compared to the magnification at distance focus (unaccommodated). These changes correspond to a change of 9.4% and 6.5% per dioptre of accommodation, respectively. Angular magnification also increased with pseudophakic accommodation. 1E-AIOLs produced consistently less magnification than 2E-AIOLs. Relative retinal image size decreased at a rate of 0.25% with each dioptre of accommodation in the phakic model eye. The position of the image space nodal point shifted away from the retina (towards the cornea) with both phakic and pseudophakic accommodation. CONCLUSION: Power of the mobile element, and amount and direction of the translation (or the achieved accommodative amplitude) are important parameters in determining the magnifications of the AIOLs. The results highlight the need for caution in the prescribing of AIOL. Aniso-accommodation or inter-ocular differences in AIOL designs (or relative to the natural lens of the contralateral eye) may introduce dynamic aniseikonia and consequent impaired binocular vision. Nevertheless, some designs, offering greater increases in magnification on accommodation, may provide enhanced near vision depending on patient needs.