Retinal image quality with multifocal, EDoF, and accommodative intraocular lenses as studied by pyramidal aberrometry.
Accommodative IOL
Cataract surgery
Extended depth of focus
Multifocal IOL
Pyramidal aberrometry
Journal
Eye and vision (London, England)
ISSN: 2326-0254
Titre abrégé: Eye Vis (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101664982
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Oct 2021
06 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
04
12
2020
accepted:
06
09
2021
entrez:
7
10
2021
pubmed:
8
10
2021
medline:
8
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To study and compare the clinical optical image quality following implantation with different premium IOLs by analysing the point spread function (PSF) Strehl ratio using a pyramidal wavefront sensor (PWS)-based aberrometer. This study included 194 eyes implanted with: (a) 19 AcrySof SA60AT (control group); (b) 19 Miniwell; (c) 24 LENTIS Mplus LS-313 MF30; d) 33 LENTIS Mplus LS-313 MF15; (e) 17 AkkoLens Lumina; (f) 31 AT LISA Tri 839MP; (g) 20 Precizon Presbyopic; (h) 20 AcrySof IQ PanOptix; (i) 11 Tecnis Eyhance. Main outcome measures were PSF Strehl ratio, PSF Strehl ratio excluding second-order aberrations (PSFw2), total root mean square (RMS), low-order aberration (LOA) and high-order aberration (HOA) RMS measured by PWS aberrometer. AT LISA Tri had the highest PSFw2 Strehl ratio at both 3.0- and 4.0-mm pupil size (0.52 ± 0.14 and 0.31 ± 0.10; P < 0.05), followed by SA60AT (0.41 ± 0.11 and 0.28 ± 0.07) and PanOptix (0.4 ± 0.07 and 0.26 ± 0.04). AT LISA Tri was found to provide a significantly better retinal image quality than PanOptix at both 3.0 mm (P < 0.0001) and 4.0 mm (P = 0.004). Mplus MF15 was found to be significantly better than Mplus MF30 at both 3.0 mm (P < 0.0001) and 4.0 mm (P = 0.002). Total RMS, LOA RMS, HOA RMS, PSF Strehl ratio and PSFw2 varied significantly between the studied groups (P < 0.001). Far distance clinical image quality parameters measured by PWS aberrometer differed significantly according to the technology of the implanted lens. AT LISA Tri, SA60AT and PanOptix showed the highest values of far distance retinal image quality, while the lowest PSFw2 Strehl ratios were displayed by Miniwell, Mplus MF30 and Precizon Presbyopic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To study and compare the clinical optical image quality following implantation with different premium IOLs by analysing the point spread function (PSF) Strehl ratio using a pyramidal wavefront sensor (PWS)-based aberrometer.
METHODS
METHODS
This study included 194 eyes implanted with: (a) 19 AcrySof SA60AT (control group); (b) 19 Miniwell; (c) 24 LENTIS Mplus LS-313 MF30; d) 33 LENTIS Mplus LS-313 MF15; (e) 17 AkkoLens Lumina; (f) 31 AT LISA Tri 839MP; (g) 20 Precizon Presbyopic; (h) 20 AcrySof IQ PanOptix; (i) 11 Tecnis Eyhance. Main outcome measures were PSF Strehl ratio, PSF Strehl ratio excluding second-order aberrations (PSFw2), total root mean square (RMS), low-order aberration (LOA) and high-order aberration (HOA) RMS measured by PWS aberrometer.
RESULTS
RESULTS
AT LISA Tri had the highest PSFw2 Strehl ratio at both 3.0- and 4.0-mm pupil size (0.52 ± 0.14 and 0.31 ± 0.10; P < 0.05), followed by SA60AT (0.41 ± 0.11 and 0.28 ± 0.07) and PanOptix (0.4 ± 0.07 and 0.26 ± 0.04). AT LISA Tri was found to provide a significantly better retinal image quality than PanOptix at both 3.0 mm (P < 0.0001) and 4.0 mm (P = 0.004). Mplus MF15 was found to be significantly better than Mplus MF30 at both 3.0 mm (P < 0.0001) and 4.0 mm (P = 0.002). Total RMS, LOA RMS, HOA RMS, PSF Strehl ratio and PSFw2 varied significantly between the studied groups (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Far distance clinical image quality parameters measured by PWS aberrometer differed significantly according to the technology of the implanted lens. AT LISA Tri, SA60AT and PanOptix showed the highest values of far distance retinal image quality, while the lowest PSFw2 Strehl ratios were displayed by Miniwell, Mplus MF30 and Precizon Presbyopic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34615549
doi: 10.1186/s40662-021-00258-y
pii: 10.1186/s40662-021-00258-y
pmc: PMC8496005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
37Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Artal P, Guirao A. Contributions of the cornea and the lens to the aberrations of the human eye. Opt Lett. 1998;23(21):1713–5.
doi: 10.1364/OL.23.001713
Artal P, Guirao A, Berrio E, Williams DR. Compensation of corneal aberrations by the internal optics in the human eye. J Vision. 2001;1(1):1–8.
doi: 10.1167/1.1.1
Plaza-Puche AB, Alió JL, MacRae S, Zheleznyak L, Sala E, Yoon G. Correlating optical bench performance with clinical defocus curves in varifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2015;31(5):300–7.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20150423-03
Alió JL, Schimchak P, Montés-Micó R, Galal A. Retinal image quality after microincision intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(8):1557–60.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.01.026
Mello GR, Rocha KM, Santhiago MR, Smadja D, Krueger RR. Applications of wavefront technology. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(9):1671–83.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.07.004
Alió J, Pikkel J. Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: Neuroadaptation. In: Alió J, Pikkel J, editors. Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: The Art and The Practice. Springer edition. 2014. p. 47–52.
Liang J, Grimm B, Goelz S, Bille JF. Objective measurement of wave aberrations of the human eye with the use of the Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1994;11(7):1949–57.
doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.11.001949
Molebny VV, Panagopoulou SI, Molebny SV, Wakil YS, Pallikaris IG. Principles of ray tracing aberrometry. J Refract Surg. 2000;16(5):S572–5.
doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-20000901-17
Mrochen M, Kaemmerer M, Mierdel P, Krinke HE, Seiler T. Principles of Tscherning aberrometry. J Refract Surg. 2000;16(5):S570–1.
doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-20000901-16
Rozema JJ, VanDyck DE, Tassignon MJ. Clinical comparison of 6 aberrometers. Part 1: technical specifications. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(6):1114–27.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.11.051
Rozema JJ, VanDyck DE, Tassignon MJ. Clinical comparison of 6 aberrometers. Part 2: statistical comparison in a test group. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32(1):33–44.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.11.052
Charman WN, Montés-Micó R, Radhakrishnan H. Problems in the measurement of wavefront aberration for eyes implanted with diffractive bifocal and multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2008;24(3):280–6.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20080301-10
Plaza-Puche AB, Salerno LC, Versaci F, Romero D, Alio JL. Clinical evaluation of the repeatability of ocular aberrometry obtained with a new pyramid wavefront sensor. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29(6):585–92.
doi: 10.1177/1120672118816060
Chamot SR, Dainty C, Esposito S. Adaptive optics for ophthalmic applications using a pyramid wavefront sensor. Opt Express. 2006;14(2):518–26.
doi: 10.1364/OPEX.14.000518
Singh NK, Jaskulski M, Ramasubramanian V, Meyer D, Reed O, Rickert ME, et al. Validation of a clinical aberrometer using pyramidal wavefront sensing. Optom Vis Sci. 2019;96(10):733–44.
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001435
Alio JL, Simonov A, Plaza-Puche AB, Angelov A, Angelov Y, Van Lawick W, et al. Visual outcomes and accommodative response of the lumina accommodative intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;164:37–48.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.01.006
Alió JL, Simonov AN, Romero D, Angelov A, Angelov Y, van Lawick W, et al. Analysis of accommodative performance of a new accommodative intraocular lens. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(2):78–83.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20171205-01
Chow S, Wang H, Shao J. Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2008.
Chang DH, Rocha KM. Intraocular lens optics and aberrations. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016;27(4):298–303.
doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000279
Liao X, Haung X, Lan C, Tan Q, Wen B, Lin J, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of retinal image quality in comparing different aspheric to spherical intraocular lens implants. Curr Eye Res. 2019;44(10):1098–103.
doi: 10.1080/02713683.2019.1615512
Schwiegerling J, DeHoog E. Problems testing diffractive intraocular lenses with Shack-Hartmann sensors. Appl Opt. 2010;49(16):D62–8.
doi: 10.1364/AO.49.000D62
Dominguez-Vicent A, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R. In vitro optical quality comparison between the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal and the TECNIS Symfony. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(7):1387–97.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-015-3240-7
Ramón ML, Piñero DP, Pérez-Cambrodí RJ. Correlation of visual performance with quality of life and intraocular aberrometric profile in patients implanted with rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOLs. J Refract Surg. 2012;28(2):93–9.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20111213-02
Alió JL, Piñero DP, Plaza-Puche AB, Chan MJR. Visual outcomes and optical performance of a monofocal intraocular lens and a new-generation multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(2):241–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.08.043
Alfonso JF, Puchades C, Fernández-Vega L, Montés-Micó R, Valcarcel B, Ferrer-Blasco T. Visual acuity comparison of 2 models of bifocal aspheric intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(4):672–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.11.061
Royo M, Jiménez Á, Piñero DP. Clinical outcomes of cataract surgery with implantation of a continuous transitional focus intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(4):567–72.
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000108
Mesa RR, Monteiro T. Continuous transitional focus (CTF): a new concept in ophthalmic surgery. Ophthalmol Ther. 2018;7(2):223–31.
doi: 10.1007/s40123-018-0134-x
Plaza-Pulche AB, Alió JL. Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: AcrySof IQ Panoptix Trifocal Lens. Chapter 20. In: Alió JL, Pikkel J, editors. Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: The Art and The Practice. Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 243–8
Oliveira RF, Vargas V, Plaza-Puche AB, Alió JL. Long-term results of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens: visual, aberrometric and patient satisfaction results. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2020;30(1):201–8.
doi: 10.1177/1120672118818019
Mencucci R, Cennamo M, Venturi D, Vignapiano R, Favuzza E. Visual outcome, optical quality, and patient satisfaction with a new monofocal IOL, enhanced for intermediate vision: preliminary results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(3):378–87.
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000061