Literature DB >> 27070236

Clinically Relevant Optical Properties of Bifocal, Trifocal, and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses.

Damien Gatinel, Jérôme Loicq.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To experimentally compare the optical performance of three types of hydrophobic intraocular lenses (IOLs): extended depth of focus, bifocal, and trifocal.
METHODS: The tested IOLs were: TECNIS ZMB00 (bifocal; Abbott Medical Optics, Abbott Park, IL), TECNIS Symfony ZXR00 (extended depth of focus; Abbott Medical Optics), and FineVision GFree hydrophobic (trifocal; PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). Their surface topography was analyzed by optical microscopy. Modulation transfer function (MTF) and spherical aberrations were determined on optical bench for variable pupil apertures and with two cornea models (0 µm and +0.28 µm). United States Air Force target imaging was analyzed for different focal points (near, intermediate, and far). Point spread function (PSF) and halos were quantified and compared.
RESULTS: The three lenses presented step-like optic topography. For a pupil size of 3 mm or greater, clearly distinctive MTF peaks were observed for all lenses: two peaks for the extended depth of focus and bifocal lenses with +1.75 and +4.00 diopters (D) addition, respectively, and three peaks for the trifocal lens with +1.75 and +3.50 addition for intermediate and near vision, respectively. The extended depth of focus and bifocal lens had slightly higher MTF at best focus with the +0.28 µm cornea model than with the 0 µm model, whereas the trifocal lens was likely to be more independent of the corneal spherical aberrations.
CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the three lenses rely on light diffraction for their optical performance, presenting halos with comparable intensities. For small pupil apertures (< 3 mm), the MTF peaks for the far and intermediate focal distances of the trifocal and extended depth of focus lenses overlap, but the trifocal lens presented an additional MTF peak for the near focal points. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27070236     DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20160121-07

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


  27 in total

1.  Quality of vision, patient satisfaction and long-term visual function after bilateral implantation of a low addition multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Emilio Pedrotti; Rodolfo Mastropasqua; Jacopo Bonetto; Christian Demasi; Francesco Aiello; Carlo Nucci; Cesare Mariotti; Giorgio Marchini
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  In vitro optical quality of monofocal aspheric toric intraocular lenses: effect of cylindrical power.

Authors:  Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Alberto Domínguez-Vicent; Santiago García-Lázaro; María Amparo Diez; José F Alfonso; José J Esteve-Taboada
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 2.031

3.  Visual performance of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens for treatment selection.

Authors:  Thomas Kohnen; Myriam Böhm; Eva Hemkeppler; Sabrina Schönbrunn; Nina DeLorenzo; Kerstin Petermann; Michael Herzog
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Comparison of visual outcomes between bilateral trifocal intraocular lenses and combined bifocal intraocular lenses with different near addition.

Authors:  Ken Hayashi; Tatsuhiko Sato; Chizuka Igarashi; Motoaki Yoshida
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 2.447

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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of two bifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  César Vilar; Wilson Takashi Hida; André Lins de Medeiros; Klayny Rafaella Pereira Magalhães; Patrick Frensel de Moraes Tzelikis; Mario Augusto Pereira Dias Chaves; Antônio Francisco Pimenta Motta; Pedro Carlos Carricondo; Milton Ruiz Alves; Walton Nosé
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-08-01

9.  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

10.  Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  André Lins de Medeiros; André Gustavo de Araújo Rolim; Antonio Francisco Pimenta Motta; Bruna Vieira Ventura; César Vilar; Mário Augusto Pereira Dias Chaves; Pedro Carlos Carricondo; Wilson Takashi Hida
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-10-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.