Literature DB >> 26671689

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

Alberto Domínguez-Vicent1,2, Jose Juan Esteve-Taboada3, Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco3, Teresa Ferrer-Blasco3, Robert Montés-Micó3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the optical quality between two intraocular lenses (IOLs): the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal (SIFI Medtech, Catania, Italy), and the TECNIS Symfony (Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA), which both provide a continuous range of vision from far to near positions.
METHODS: The in vitro optical quality of each lens was assessed with an instrument conceived for measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF). The optical quality of each lens was described in terms of MTF, through-focus MTF, defocus tolerance, pupil dependence, and Strehl ratio MTF. These metrics were assessed for the best lens far focus, and at four vergences (from -1.5 to -3.0 D in 0.5-D steps), at 3.0 and 4.5 mm apertures.
RESULTS: The through-focus curves of each lens showed two main areas: one corresponding to far-distance vision, and another to intermediate- and near-distance vision. Both lenses showed similar MTF curves and Strehl ratio values at both apertures. The optical quality of both lenses slightly decreased with the aperture for all vergences. Nevertheless, the quality of the progressive multifocal lens increased with the aperture at far-distance vision. This lens also showed the largest defocus tolerance at near-distance vision for both apertures.
CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in the present study suggest that both designs might enlarge the depth of focus. Whereas, the Mini WELL Ready showed better optical quality than the TECNIS Symfony at far vision with 4.5 mm aperture, and larger defocus tolerance than the diffractive lens at near-distance vision.

Keywords:  Extended depth of focus; In vitro measurements; Multifocal intraocular lens; Optical quality

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26671689     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-015-3240-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  25 in total

1.  Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models.

Authors:  José F Alfonso; Luis Fernández-Vega; Cristina Puchades; Robert Montés-Micó
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations.

Authors:  Larry N Thibos; Xin Hong; Arthur Bradley; Raymond A Applegate
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2004-04-23       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Modulation transfer function and optical quality after bilateral implantation of a +3.00 D versus a +4.00 D multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Marcony R Santhiago; Steven E Wilson; Marcelo V Netto; Ramon C Ghanen; Mario Luis R Monteiro; Samir J Bechara; Edgar M Espana; Glauco R Mello; Newton Kara
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 3.351

4.  Correlation between optics quality of multifocal intraocular lenses and visual acuity: tolerance to modulation transfer function decay.

Authors:  Adelina Felipe; Francisco Pastor; José M Artigas; Amparo Diez-Ajenjo; Andrés Gené; José L Menezo
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.351

5.  Standardized methods for assessing the imaging quality of intraocular lenses.

Authors:  N E Norrby
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  1995-11-01       Impact factor: 1.980

6.  Effect of decentration and tilt on the image quality of aspheric intraocular lens designs in a model eye.

Authors:  Timo Eppig; Katja Scholz; André Löffler; Arthur Messner; Achim Langenbucher
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 7.  Analysis of the possible benefits of aspheric intraocular lenses: review of the literature.

Authors:  Robert Montés-Micó; Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Alejandro Cerviño
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.351

8.  Pupillary size and responsiveness. Implications for selection of a bifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  D D Koch; S W Samuelson; E A Haft; L M Merin
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  In vitro strehl ratios with spherical, aberration-free, average, and customized spherical aberration-correcting intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Stefan Pieh; Werner Fiala; Andre Malz; Wilhelm Stork
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 4.799

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

Authors:  David Madrid-Costa; Javier Ruiz-Alcocer; Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Santiago García-Lázaro; Robert Montés-Micó
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.573

View more
  20 in total

1.  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

2.  Functional assessment of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens.

Authors:  Giacomo Savini; Nicole Balducci; Claudio Carbonara; Scipione Rossi; Manuel Altieri; Nicola Frugis; Emilia Zappulla; Roberto Bellucci; Giovanni Alessio
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Model of the light sword intraocular lens: in-vitro comparative studies.

Authors:  Krzysztof Petelczyc; Andrzej Kolodziejczyk; Narcyz Błocki; Anna Byszewska; Zbigniew Jaroszewicz; Karol Kakarenko; Katarzyna Kołacz; Michał Miler; Alejandro Mira-Agudelo; Walter Torres-Sepúlveda; Marek Rękas
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 3.732

4.  Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Rubén Sánchez-Jean; David Carmona-González; David P Piñero; Ainhoa Molina-Martín
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 2.031

5.  Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens.

Authors:  Rita Mencucci; Eleonora Favuzza; Orsola Caporossi; Alfonso Savastano; Stanislao Rizzo
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 6.  Opto-Mechanical Eye Models, a Review on Human Vision Applications and Perspectives for Use in Industry.

Authors:  André Rino Amorim; Boris Bret; José M González-Méijome
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 3.847

7.  Extended depth of focus intraocular lens: Chromatic performance.

Authors:  Maria S Millán; Fidel Vega
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 3.732

8.  In Vitro Aberrometric Assessment of a Multifocal Intraocular Lens and Two Extended Depth of Focus IOLs.

Authors:  Vicente J Camps; Angel Tolosa; David P Piñero; Dolores de Fez; María T Caballero; Juan J Miret
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 1.909

9.  Through-Focus Vision Performance and Light Disturbances of 3 New Intraocular Lenses for Presbyopia Correction.

Authors:  Santiago Escandón-García; Filomena J Ribeiro; Colm McAlinden; António Queirós; José M González-Méijome
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 1.909

Review 10.  Extended Depth-of-Field Intraocular Lenses: An Update.

Authors:  Piotr Kanclerz; Francesca Toto; Andrzej Grzybowski; Jorge L Alio
Journal:  Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila)       Date:  2020 May-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.