Literature DB >> 31799048

Pre-operative simulation of post-operative multifocal vision.

Maria Vinas1, Sara Aissati2, Mercedes Romero1, Clara Benedi-Garcia1, Nuria Garzon2, Francisco Poyales2, Carlos Dorronsoro1, Susana Marcos1.   

Abstract

While multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) are increasingly implanted to correct for presbyopia, how one sees with a multifocal correction is hard to explain and imagine. The current study evaluates the quality of various visual simulating technologies by comparing vision with simulated MIOLs pre-operatively and the implanted MIOLs post-operatively in the same patients. Two simulation platforms were used: (1) a custom-developed adaptiveoptics (AO) system, with two visual simulator devices: a spatial light modulator (SLM) and an optotunable lens operating under temporal multiplexing (SimVis); and (2) a wearable, binocular, large field of view SimVis2Eyes clinical simulator (SimVis Gekko, 2Eyes Vision, Madrid, Spain). All devices were programmed to simulate a trifocal diffractive MIOL (POD F, FineVision, PhysIOL). Eight patients were measured pre-operatively simulating the trifocal lens and post-operatively with implantation of the same MIOL. Through-focus decimal visual acuity (TF VA) was measured (1) monocularly in monochromatic light using a four-alternative-forced-choice procedure in the AO system; and (2) binocularly using a clinical optotype in white light. Visual simulations pre-operatively predict well the TF VA performance found post-operatively in patients implanted with the real IOL. The average RMS difference between TF curves with the different visual simulators was 0.05 ± 0.01. The average RMS difference between the TF VA curves with the SimVis pre-operatively and the real MIOL post-operatively was 0.06 ± 0.01 in both platforms, and it was higher in cataract eyes (0.08 ± 0.01, on average across simulators) than in eyes with clear lens. In either group the shape of the TF curves is similar across simulators and pre- and post-operatively. TF curves cross-correlated significantly between simulators (lag k = 0, rho = 0.889), as well as with results with the real MIOL implanted (lag k = 0, rho = 0.853). Visual simulations are useful programmable tools to predict visual performance with MIOLs, both in an AO environment and in a clinical simulator. Pre-operative visual simulations and post-operative data are in good agreement.
© 2019 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31799048      PMCID: PMC6865107          DOI: 10.1364/BOE.10.005801

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomed Opt Express        ISSN: 2156-7085            Impact factor:   3.732


  39 in total

1.  Closed-loop adaptive optics with a single element for wavefront sensing and correction.

Authors:  Raúl Martínez-Cuenca; Vicente Durán; Justo Arines; Jorge Ares; Zbigniew Jaroszewicz; Salvador Bará; Lluís Martínez-León; Jesús Lancis
Journal:  Opt Lett       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 3.776

2.  Wave-front correction and production of Zernike modes with a liquid-crystal spatial light modulator.

Authors:  G D Love
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  1997-03-01       Impact factor: 1.980

3.  Comparison of bifocal and trifocal diffractive and refractive intraocular lenses using an optical bench.

Authors:  Damien Gatinel; Yvette Houbrechts
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2013-05-18       Impact factor: 3.351

4.  Binocular visual simulation of a corneal inlay to increase depth of focus.

Authors:  Juan Tabernero; Christina Schwarz; Enrique J Fernández; Pablo Artal
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Differences in visual quality with orientation of a rotationally asymmetric bifocal intraocular lens design.

Authors:  Aiswaryah Radhakrishnan; Carlos Dorronsoro; Susana Marcos
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.351

6.  Achromatic correction of diffractive dispersion in white light SLM imaging.

Authors:  Zdeněk Bouchal; Vladimír Chlup; Radek Celechovský; Petr Bouchal; Ioan Cristian Nistor
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Validation of the Nuclear Cataract Grading System BCN 10.

Authors:  Rafael I Barraquer; Laura Pinilla Cortés; Miriam J Allende; Gustavo A Montenegro; Bozidar Ivankovic; Justin Christopher D'Antin; Hernán Martínez Osorio; Ralph Michael
Journal:  Ophthalmic Res       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 2.892

8.  Comparison of vision through surface modulated and spatial light modulated multifocal optics.

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

Review 9.  Vision science and adaptive optics, the state of the field.

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

10.  Psychophysical Vision Simulation of Diffractive Bifocal and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses.

Authors:  Wolfgang Brezna; Kirsten Lux; Nikolaus Dragostinoff; Christian Krutzler; Nicole Plank; Rainer Tobisch; Agnes Boltz; Gerhard Garhöfer; Reinhard Told; Katarzyna Witkowska; Leopold Schmetterer
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.283

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Applications of augmented reality in ophthalmology [Invited].

Authors:  Güneş Aydındoğan; Koray Kavaklı; Afsun Şahin; Pablo Artal; Hakan Ürey
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 3.732

2.  Pupil steering holographic display for pre-operative vision screening of cataracts.

Authors:  Koray Kavaklı; Güneş Aydındoğan; Erdem Ulusoy; Cem Kesim; Murat Hasanreisoğlu; Afsun Şahin; Hakan Urey
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 3.732

3.  Multifocal acceptance score to evaluate vision: MAS-2EV.

Authors:  Xoana Barcala; Maria Vinas; Mercedes Romero; Enrique Gambra; Juan Luis Mendez-Gonzalez; Susana Marcos; Carlos Dorronsoro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Visual performance with multifocal lenses in young adults and presbyopes.

Authors:  Shrilekha Vedhakrishnan; Maria Vinas; Clara Benedi-Garcia; Pilar Casado; Susana Marcos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Matching convolved images to optically blurred images on the retina.

Authors:  Sara Aissati; Clara Benedi-Garcia; Maria Vinas; Alberto de Castro; Susana Marcos
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Optical and Visual Quality With Physical and Visually Simulated Presbyopic Multifocal Contact Lenses.

Authors:  Maria Vinas; Sara Aissati; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Ramos; Mercedes Romero; Lucie Sawides; Vyas Akondi; Enrique Gambra; Carlos Dorronsoro; Thomas Karkkainen; Derek Nankivil; Susana Marcos
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  A Novel Intraocular Lens Simulator that Allows Patients to Experience the World Through Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Before Surgeries.

Authors:  Kyung-Sun Na; Seong-Jae Kim; Gahee Nam; Minji Ha; Woong-Joo Whang; Eun Chul Kim; Hyun-Seung Kim; Ho Sik Hwang
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 3.048

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.