In vitro optical quality comparison between the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal and the TECNIS Symfony

PurposeTo compare the optical quality between two intraocular lenses (IOLs): the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal (SIFI Medtech, Catania, Italy), and the TECNIS Symfony (Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA), which both provide a continuous range of vision from far to near positions.MethodsThe in vitro optical quality of each lens was assessed with an instrument conceived for measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF). The optical quality of each lens was described in terms of MTF, through-focus MTF, defocus tolerance, pupil dependence, and Strehl ratio MTF. These metrics were assessed for the best lens far focus, and at four vergences (from −1.5 to −3.0 D in 0.5-D steps), at 3.0 and 4.5 mm apertures.ResultsThe through-focus curves of each lens showed two main areas: one corresponding to far-distance vision, and another to intermediate- and near-distance vision. Both lenses showed similar MTF curves and Strehl ratio values at both apertures. The optical quality of both lenses slightly decreased with the aperture for all vergences. Nevertheless, the quality of the progressive multifocal lens increased with the aperture at far-distance vision. This lens also showed the largest defocus tolerance at near-distance vision for both apertures.ConclusionsThe results obtained in the present study suggest that both designs might enlarge the depth of focus. Whereas, the Mini WELL Ready showed better optical quality than the TECNIS Symfony at far vision with 4.5 mm aperture, and larger defocus tolerance than the diffractive lens at near-distance vision.

[1]  D D Koch,et al.  Pupillary size and responsiveness. Implications for selection of a bifocal intraocular lens. , 1991, Ophthalmology.

[2]  N E Norrby Standardized methods for assessing the imaging quality of intraocular lenses. , 1995, Applied optics.

[3]  Steven C Schallhorn,et al.  Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction in 9366 eyes using a refractive segmented multifocal intraocular lens , 2013, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[4]  A. Bradley,et al.  Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[5]  J. Venter,et al.  Initial experience with a new refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. , 2014, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  Warren E Hill,et al.  Optical bench performance of AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR®, AT LISA® tri, and FineVision® intraocular lenses , 2014, Clinical ophthalmology.

[7]  Achim Langenbucher,et al.  Effect of decentration and tilt on the image quality of aspheric intraocular lens designs in a model eye , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[8]  Maria Fatima Silva,et al.  Comparison of visual function after bilateral implantation of inferior sector‐shaped near‐addition and diffractive–refractive multifocal IOLs , 2013, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[9]  G. Marchini,et al.  Comparison of two multifocal intraocular lens designs that differ only in near add. , 2014, Journal of refractive surgery.

[10]  Gary C. Brown,et al.  The quality of life associated with presbyopia. , 2008, American journal of ophthalmology.

[11]  R. Montés-Micó,et al.  Analysis of the possible benefits of aspheric intraocular lenses: review of the literature. , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[12]  Satish S. Modi,et al.  Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power: Randomized multicenter clinical study , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[13]  G. Muñoz,et al.  Visual function after bilateral implantation of a new zonal refractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lens , 2011, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[14]  Norberto López-Gil,et al.  In vitro optical performance of nonrotational symmetric and refractive–diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses: Impact of tilt and decentration , 2012, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[15]  Damien Gatinel,et al.  Comparison of bifocal and trifocal diffractive and refractive intraocular lenses using an optical bench , 2013, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[16]  E. Espana,et al.  Modulation transfer function and optical quality after bilateral implantation of a +3.00 D versus a +4.00 D multifocal intraocular lens , 2012, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[17]  A. Felipe,et al.  Correlation between optics quality of multifocal intraocular lenses and visual acuity: Tolerance to modulation transfer function decay , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[18]  J. Alfonso,et al.  Visual function after implantation of an aspheric bifocal intraocular lens , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  M. Atkinson,et al.  A qualitative investigation of visual tasks with which to assess distance-specific visual function , 2013, Quality of Life Research.

[20]  Robert Montés-Micó,et al.  Optical quality differences between three multifocal intraocular lenses: bifocal low add, bifocal moderate add, and trifocal. , 2013, Journal of refractive surgery.

[21]  Steven C. Schallhorn,et al.  Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction with a rotational asymmetric refractive intraocular lens for emmetropic presbyopia , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[22]  T. Rabsilber,et al.  Influence of +3.00 D and +4.00 D near addition on functional outcomes of a refractive multifocal intraocular lens model , 2013, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[23]  J. Alfonso,et al.  Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[24]  Wilhelm Stork,et al.  In vitro strehl ratios with spherical, aberration-free, average, and customized spherical aberration-correcting intraocular lenses. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[25]  José M Artigas,et al.  Image quality with multifocal intraocular lenses and the effect of pupil size: Comparison of refractive and hybrid refractive–diffractive designs , 2007, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.