Hyeck-Soo Son1, Grzegorz Łabuz1, Ramin Khoramnia1, Timur M Yildirim1, Gerd U Auffarth2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, The David J. Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology and International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), University of Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, The David J. Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology and International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), University of Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Gerd.Auffarth@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the optical behavior of a new diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and compare its performance to that of an established extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL. METHODS: This study assessed the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX [Eyebright Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China] and the AT LARA 829MP [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany]. An experimental set-up with 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic light (532 nm) was used to visualize the IOLs' ray propagation. In addition, the optical quality of the IOLs was assessed by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at 50lp/mm and 3.0 and 4.5 mm apertures on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II [Trioptics GmbH, Germany]. RESULTS: The ray propagation of the two IOLs showed two distinct foci. Light intensity assessment revealed that both IOLs allocate more energy to primary than secondary focus. At 3.0 mm pupil, the MTF values at 50lp/mm for the primary focus were 0.39 and 0.37, and for the secondary focus, 0.29 and 0.26 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. At 4.5 mm pupil, the single-frequency MTF for the primary focus was 0.51 and 0.24 and for the secondary focus 0.21 and 0.15 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When tested with an aberration-free model cornea under monochromatic conditions, the Proming behaved as a low-add bifocal lens; however, its properties did not differ much from the well-established AT LARA EDOF IOL. The AT LARA outperformed the Proming at low defocus (up to 2D), while the latter demonstrated better image quality in the 2-3D range.
BACKGROUND: To assess the optical behavior of a new diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and compare its performance to that of an established extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL. METHODS: This study assessed the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX [Eyebright Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China] and the AT LARA 829MP [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany]. An experimental set-up with 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic light (532 nm) was used to visualize the IOLs' ray propagation. In addition, the optical quality of the IOLs was assessed by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at 50lp/mm and 3.0 and 4.5 mm apertures on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II [Trioptics GmbH, Germany]. RESULTS: The ray propagation of the two IOLs showed two distinct foci. Light intensity assessment revealed that both IOLs allocate more energy to primary than secondary focus. At 3.0 mm pupil, the MTF values at 50lp/mm for the primary focus were 0.39 and 0.37, and for the secondary focus, 0.29 and 0.26 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. At 4.5 mm pupil, the single-frequency MTF for the primary focus was 0.51 and 0.24 and for the secondary focus 0.21 and 0.15 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When tested with an aberration-free model cornea under monochromatic conditions, the Proming behaved as a low-add bifocal lens; however, its properties did not differ much from the well-established AT LARA EDOF IOL. The AT LARA outperformed the Proming at low defocus (up to 2D), while the latter demonstrated better image quality in the 2-3D range.
Entities:
Keywords:
Extended-depth-of-focus; Multifocal IOL; Optical bench; Optical quality; Ray propagation
Authors: John R Beard; Alana Officer; Islene Araujo de Carvalho; Ritu Sadana; Anne Margriet Pot; Jean-Pierre Michel; Peter Lloyd-Sherlock; JoAnne E Epping-Jordan; G M E E Geeske Peeters; Wahyu Retno Mahanani; Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan; Somnath Chatterji Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jan Sievers; Ricardo Elsner; Sebastian Bohn; Melanie Schünemann; Heinrich Stolz; Rudolf F Guthoff; Oliver Stachs; Karsten Sperlich Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Diego Montagud-Martínez; Vicente Ferrando; Anabel Martínez-Espert; Salvador Garcia-Delpech; Juan A Monsoriu; Walter D Furlan Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 4.241