Literature DB >> 24203806

Optical quality differences between three multifocal intraocular lenses: bifocal low add, bifocal moderate add, and trifocal.

David Madrid-Costa, Javier Ruiz-Alcocer, Teresa Ferrer-Blasco, Santiago García-Lázaro, Robert Montés-Micó.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the in vitro optical quality at different focal points of two new bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and one new trifocal IOL.
METHODS: The AcrySof ReSTOR SV25T0 (+2.5 diopter [D] add) and the AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 (+3.0 D add) with two main foci (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX) and the AT LISA tri 839MP with three main foci (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) were evaluated. The optical quality of the IOLs was measured with the PMTF optical bench (LAMBDA-X, Nivelles, Belgium). The optical quality of the IOLs was quantified by the modulation transfer function (MTF) at five different focal points (0.0, -1.5, -2.0, -2.5, and -3.0 D) and for 3.0- and 4.5-mm apertures. The through-focus MTF of the IOLs was also recorded.
RESULTS: For the 0.0 D focal point, the AcrySof ReSTOR (+2.5 D add) obtained the highest MTF values for all apertures. For the -2.5 D focal point, the AcrySof ReSTOR (+3.0 D add) showed the highest MTF values for 3.0 mm. For the -3.0 D focal point at 3.0- and 4.5-mm aperture, the best values were obtained with the AcrySof ReSTOR (+3.0 D add) and the AT LISA, respectively. For the -1.5 D focal point, the trifocal IOL provided better values. For the -2.0 D focal point, all IOLs provided comparable results. The through-focus MTF curves showed three and two peaks for the trifocal and bifocal IOLs, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The trifocal IOL provides a better optical quality at the -1.5 D focal point. However, the optical quality of the trifocal IOL significantly decreases compared to the bifocal IOLs at far distance and -2.5 D focal points. Copyright 2013, SLACK Incorporated.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24203806     DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20131021-04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Refract Surg        ISSN: 1081-597X            Impact factor:   3.573


  19 in total

1.  Optical performance of toric intraocular lenses in the presence of decentration.

Authors:  Bin Zhang; Jin-Xue Ma; Dan-Yan Liu; Ying-Hua Du; Cong-Rong Guo; Yue-Xian Cui
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  In vitro optical quality comparison between the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal and the TECNIS Symfony.

Authors:  Alberto Domínguez-Vicent; Jose Juan Esteve-Taboada; Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Robert Montés-Micó
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Temporal multiplexing with adaptive optics for simultaneous vision.

Authors:  Eleni Papadatou; Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Iván Marín-Franch; Norberto López-Gil
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 3.732

4.  Repeatability of in-vitro optical quality measurements of intraocular lenses with a deflectometry technique effect of the toricity.

Authors:  Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Alberto Domínguez-Vicent; Santiago García-Lázaro; María Amparo Díez-Ajenjo; José F Alfonso; José J Esteve-Taboada
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 1.779

5.  Postoperative visual performance with a bifocal and trifocal diffractive intraocular lens during a 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  Peter Mojzis; Lucia Kukuckova; Katarina Majerova; Peter Ziak; David P Piñero
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

6.  Preclinical metrics to predict through-focus visual acuity for pseudophakic patients.

Authors:  Aixa Alarcon; Carmen Canovas; Robert Rosen; Henk Weeber; Linda Tsai; Kendra Hileman; Patricia Piers
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 3.732

7.  Comparison of visual outcomes and subjective visual quality after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of apodized diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Kjell Gunnar Gundersen; Rick Potvin
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-05-10

8.  Clinical outcomes with a low add multifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lenses both implanted with mini-monovision.

Authors:  Mehmet Orkun Sevik; Semra Akkaya Turhan; Ebru Toker
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 4.456

9.  Clinical Outcomes after Binocular Implantation of a New Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens.

Authors:  Florian T A Kretz; Detlev Breyer; Vasilios F Diakonis; Karsten Klabe; Franziska Henke; Gerd U Auffarth; Hakan Kaymak
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-08-02       Impact factor: 1.909

10.  Optical and material analysis of opacified hydrophilic intraocular lenses after explantation: a laboratory study.

Authors:  Tamer Tandogan; Ramin Khoramnia; Chul Young Choi; Alexander Scheuerle; Martin Wenzel; Philipp Hugger; Gerd U Auffarth
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 2.209

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.