Maria Vinas1, Carlos Dorronsoro2, Nuria Garzón2, Francisco Poyales2, Susana Marcos2. 1. From the Instituto de Óptica (Vinas, Dorronsoro, Marcos), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and the Instituto de Oftalmología Avanzada (Garzón, Poyales), Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: maria.vinas@io.cfmac.csic.es. 2. From the Instituto de Óptica (Vinas, Dorronsoro, Marcos), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and the Instituto de Oftalmología Avanzada (Garzón, Poyales), Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure the longitudinal chromatic aberration in vivo using psychophysical and wavefront-sensing methods in patients with bilateral implantation of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) of similar aspheric design but different materials (hydrophobic Podeye and hydrophilic Poday). SETTING: Instituto de Optica, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid, Spain. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: Measurements were performed with the use of psychophysical (480 to 700 nm) and wavefront-sensing (480 to 950 nm) methods using a custom-developed adaptive optics system. Chromatic difference-of-focus curves were obtained from best-focus data at each wavelength, and the longitudinal chromatic aberration was obtained from the slope of linear regressions to those curves. RESULTS: The longitudinal chromatic aberration from psychophysical measurements was 1.37 diopters (D) ± 0.08 (SD) (hydrophobic) and 1.21 ± 0.08 D (hydrophilic). From wavefront-sensing, the longitudinal chromatic aberration was 0.88 ± 0.07 D and 0.73 ± 0.09 D, respectively. At 480 to 950 nm, the longitudinal chromatic aberration was 1.27 ± 0.09 D (hydrophobic) and 1.02 ± 0.13 D (hydrophilic). The longitudinal chromatic aberration was consistently higher in eyes with the hydrophobic IOL than in eyes with the hydrophilic IOL (a difference of 0.16 D and 0.15 D, respectively). Similar to findings in young phakic eyes, the longitudinal chromatic aberration from the psychophysical method was consistently higher than from wavefront-sensing, by 0.48 D (35.41%) for the hydrophobic IOL and 0.48 D (39.43%) for the hydrophilic IOL. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal chromatic aberrations were smaller with hydrophilic IOLs than with hydrophobic IOLs of the same design. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
PURPOSE: To measure the longitudinal chromatic aberration in vivo using psychophysical and wavefront-sensing methods in patients with bilateral implantation of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) of similar aspheric design but different materials (hydrophobic Podeye and hydrophilic Poday). SETTING: Instituto de Optica, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid, Spain. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: Measurements were performed with the use of psychophysical (480 to 700 nm) and wavefront-sensing (480 to 950 nm) methods using a custom-developed adaptive optics system. Chromatic difference-of-focus curves were obtained from best-focus data at each wavelength, and the longitudinal chromatic aberration was obtained from the slope of linear regressions to those curves. RESULTS: The longitudinal chromatic aberration from psychophysical measurements was 1.37 diopters (D) ± 0.08 (SD) (hydrophobic) and 1.21 ± 0.08 D (hydrophilic). From wavefront-sensing, the longitudinal chromatic aberration was 0.88 ± 0.07 D and 0.73 ± 0.09 D, respectively. At 480 to 950 nm, the longitudinal chromatic aberration was 1.27 ± 0.09 D (hydrophobic) and 1.02 ± 0.13 D (hydrophilic). The longitudinal chromatic aberration was consistently higher in eyes with the hydrophobic IOL than in eyes with the hydrophilic IOL (a difference of 0.16 D and 0.15 D, respectively). Similar to findings in young phakic eyes, the longitudinal chromatic aberration from the psychophysical method was consistently higher than from wavefront-sensing, by 0.48 D (35.41%) for the hydrophobic IOL and 0.48 D (39.43%) for the hydrophilic IOL. CONCLUSION:Longitudinal chromatic aberrations were smaller with hydrophilic IOLs than with hydrophobic IOLs of the same design. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
Authors: Maria Vinas; Carlos Dorronsoro; Aiswaryah Radhakrishnan; Clara Benedi-Garcia; Edward Anthony LaVilla; Jim Schwiegerling; Susana Marcos Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Susana Marcos; John S Werner; Stephen A Burns; William H Merigan; Pablo Artal; David A Atchison; Karen M Hampson; Richard Legras; Linda Lundstrom; Geungyoung Yoon; Joseph Carroll; Stacey S Choi; Nathan Doble; Adam M Dubis; Alfredo Dubra; Ann Elsner; Ravi Jonnal; Donald T Miller; Michel Paques; Hannah E Smithson; Laura K Young; Yuhua Zhang; Melanie Campbell; Jennifer Hunter; Andrew Metha; Grazyna Palczewska; Jesse Schallek; Lawrence C Sincich Journal: Vision Res Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Clara Benedi-Garcia; Maria Vinas; Carlos Dorronsoro; Stephen A Burns; Eli Peli; Susana Marcos Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 4.379