Literature DB >> 28013392

The clinical depth of field achievable with trifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses: theoretical considerations and proof of concept clinical results.

Ante Barišić1, Sudi Patel2,3, Nikica Gabric2, Claes G Feinbaum4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To estimate the depth of field (DOF) achievable with multi-and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and compare with actual measurements of DOF in cases implanted with a trifocal IOL and biconvex monofocal IOL
METHODS: I) Computer simulations were produced to describe the relationship between DOF, pupil size, preoperative ametropia, and retinal blur tolerance limit for a model eye implanted with either multi- or monofocal IOLs. II) Monocular DOF and pupil size were measured under distance viewing conditions between 3 and 6 months postoperative following uneventful cataract surgery. Cases were implanted with either i) trifocal aspheric IOL (n = 36), or ii) biconvex aspheric monofocal IOL (n = 26). DOF was also measured at 0.33 m in cases implanted with i).
RESULTS: Simulations revealed significant associations between DOF, pupil size, and retinal blur tolerance limit. The mean (±SD) DOF &amp; pupil sizes were at distance for i)  above 2.59D (0.68) &amp; 3.54 mm (0.377), and for ii) above 1.67D (0.51) &amp; 2.90 mm (0.351), and for i) above 3.16D (0.46) at near. The difference between groups were significant for DOF and pupil size at distance (p < 0.001). DOF was significantly greater at near compared with distance in i) above (p < 0.001). For a pupil size of 3 mm, the simulations produce similar DOF values when the tolerance limit of retinal blur is 10 μ.
CONCLUSIONS: The DOF was significantly better after implanting the trifocal IOL compared with the monofocal IOL, and DOF is increased under near viewing conditions. The clinical results are similar to calculated DOF values when the tolerance limit of retinal blur is 10 μ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Depth of field; Intraocular lenses; Pupil; Retinal blur

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28013392     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-016-3566-9

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


  30 in total

1.  Estimation of the depth of focus from wavefront measurements.

Authors:  Fan Yi; D Robert Iskander; Michael J Collins
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-04-12       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  The depth-of-focus of the human eye for Snellen letters.

Authors:  J Tucker; W N Charman
Journal:  Am J Optom Physiol Opt       Date:  1975-01

3.  Is randomisation necessary for measuring defocus curves in pre-presbyopes?

Authors:  Navneet Gupta; Shehzad A Naroo; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Cont Lens Anterior Eye       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.077

4.  Optimizing the subjective depth-of-focus with combinations of fourth- and sixth-order spherical aberration.

Authors:  Yohann Benard; Norberto Lopez-Gil; Richard Legras
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-10-14       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Treatment of uniocular aphakia. A comparison of iris clip lenses with hard corneal contact lenses.

Authors:  S P Percival; K M Yousef
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1976-09       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Exploring the optimum step size for defocus curves.

Authors:  James S Wolffsohn; Amit N Jinabhai; Alec Kingsnorth; Amy L Sheppard; Shehzad A Naroo; Sunil Shah; Phillip Buckhurst; Lee A Hall; Graeme Young
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.351

7.  Evaluation of contrast acuity and defocus curve in bifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  M C Knorz; D Claessens; R C Schaefer; V Seiberth; H Liesenhoff
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 3.351

8.  Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes after implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses.

Authors:  M Nakazawa; K Ohtsuki
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 5.258

9.  Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  S Dadeya; S Kaushik
Journal:  Can J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 1.882

10.  Comparison of depth of focus and low-contrast acuities for monofocal versus multifocal intraocular lens patients at 1 year.

Authors:  C T Post
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 12.079

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Depth of field and visual performance after implantation of a new hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Alejandro Cerviño; Ricardo Cuiña-Sardiña; David Carmona-Gonzalez; Alfredo Castillo-Gomez; Ruben Sanchez-Jean
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 2.086

3.  Clinical Performance of Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) Intraocular Lenses - A Retrospective Comparative Study of Mini Well Ready and Symfony.

Authors:  Katarzyna Ewa Nowik; Kamil Nowik; Piotr Kanclerz; Jacek Paweł Szaflik
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-05-26

4.  Depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes implanted with different type of presbyopia-correcting IOLS.

Authors:  Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Rubén Sánchez-Jean; David Carmona-Gonzalez; David P Piñero; Ainhoa Molina-Martín
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.