ZusammenfassungHintergrundKenntnisse zur optischen Qualität verschiedener trifokaler Intraokularlinsen (IOL) sind wichtig für eine individualisierte Patientenversorgung.Ziel der ArbeitVergleich der optischen Qualität dreier diffraktiver trifokaler IOL.Material und MethodenAn der optischen Bank OptiSpheric IOL PRO (Fa. Trioptics, Wedel) wurden folgende Trifokallinsen analysiert: FineVision Micro F (Fa. PhysIOL, Liège, Belgien), AT LISA tri 839MP (Fa. Zeiss, Oberkochen) und AcrySofIQ PanOptix TFNT00 (Fa. Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA). Die Additionen für den Nah- und Intermediärbereich der IOL sind: +3,5 dpt/+1,75 dpt (FineVision), +3,33 dpt/+1,66 dpt (AT LISA tri) und + 3,25 dpt/+ 2,17 dpt (PanOptix). Evaluiert wurden die Modulationstransferfunktion (MTF) bei einer Ortsfrequenz von 50 lp/mm und die Strehl-Ratio jeweils bei einer Apertur von 3 mm (photopisch) sowie 4,5 mm (mesopisch).ErgebnisseDie MTF bei 50 lp/mm (FineVision/AT Lisa tri/PanOptix) betrug für den Fernfokus 0,373/0,399/0,400 (3-mm-Apertur)
und 0,512/0,311/0,243 (4,5-mm-Apertur). Im Intermediärfokus lag die MTF bei 0,162/0,147/0,153 (3-mm-Apertur) und
0,092/0,125/0,137 (4,5-mm-Apertur). Die MTF für den Nahfokus betrug 0,229/0,192/0,404 (3-mm-Apertur) und
0,217/0,212/0,169 (4,5-mm-Apertur). Die Strehl-Ratio für den Fernfokus lag bei 0,335/0,298/0,370 (3-mm-Apertur) und
0,243/0,180/0,270 (4,5-mm-Apertur). Im Intermediärbereich erreichte die Strehl-Ratio 0,189/0,185/0,162
(3-mm-Apertur) und 0,099/0,097/0,114 (4,5-mm-Apertur). Die Strehl-Ratio im Nahfokus lag bei 0,305/0,283/0,464 (3-mm-Apertur) und 0,177/0,181/0,155 (4,5-mm-Apertur).DiskussionBei der Untersuchung der 3 trifokalen IOL-Modelle an der optischen Bank waren deutliche Peaks im Fern‑, Intermediär- und Nahfokus nachweisbar. Die Ergebnisse hinsichtlich der optischen Qualität waren vergleichbar.AbstractBackgroundKnowledge of the optical quality of different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) is important in customized patient care.ObjectiveDifferent trifocal IOL were compared regarding their optical quality.Materials and methodsWe analyzed the FineVision (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium), the AT LISA tri 839MP (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany), and the AcrySofIQ PanOptix (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) with a power of +21D for the distance using the OptiSpheric IOL PRO optical bench (Trioptics, Wedel, Germany). The additions for the near and intermediate distances were as follows: +3.5D/+1.75D (FineVision), +3.33D/+1.66D (AT LISA tri), and + 3,25D/+ 2,17D (PanOptix). We evaluated the modulation transfer function (MTF) at a spatial frequency of 50lp/mm and the Strehl ratio using 3‑ (photopic) and 4.5-mm (mesopic) apertures.ResultsThe MTF at 50 lp/mm (FineVision/AT Lisa tri/PanOptix) at the far focus was 0.373/0.399/0.400 (3-mm aperture) and 0.512/0.311/0.243 (4.5-mm aperture). At the intermediate focus, the MTF was 0.162/0.147/0.153 (3-mm aperture) and 0.092/0.125/0.137 (4.5-mm aperture). The MTF at the near focus was 0.229/0.192/0.404 (3-mm aperture) and 0.217/0.212/0.169 (4.5-mm aperture). The Strehl ratio was 0.335/0.298/0.370 (3-mm aperture) and 0.243/0.180/0.270 (4.5-mm aperture) at the far focus. At intermediate distances, the Strehl ratio was 0.189/0.185/0.162 (3-mm aperture) and 0.099/0.097/0.114 (4.5-mm aperture). The Strehl ratio was 0.305/0.283/0.464 (3-mm aperture) and 0.177/0.181/0.155 (4.5-mm aperture) at the near focus.ConclusionEvaluation of the three trifocal IOL models at the optical bench could show distinct peaks at the far, intermediate, and near focus. The results were comparable in terms of optical performance.
[1]
M. Leyland,et al.
Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.
,
2001,
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
[2]
M. Koss,et al.
Clinical Outcomes After Implantation of a Trifocal Toric Intraocular Lens.
,
2015,
Journal of refractive surgery.
[3]
Warren E Hill,et al.
Optical bench performance of AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR®, AT LISA® tri, and FineVision® intraocular lenses
,
2014,
Clinical ophthalmology.
[4]
Thomas Kohnen,et al.
Cataract surgery with implantation of an artificial lens.
,
2009,
Deutsches Arzteblatt international.
[5]
R. Khoramnia,et al.
Near and intermediate reading performance of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens using a reading desk
,
2015,
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.
[6]
P. Piers,et al.
Preclinical metrics to predict through-focus visual acuity for pseudophakic patients
,
2016,
Biomedical optics express.
[7]
C. McAlinden,et al.
Visual and refractive outcomes following implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens
,
2017,
Eye and Vision.
[8]
Xin Hong,et al.
Optical bench performance of 3 trifocal intraocular lenses
,
2016,
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.
[9]
Damien Gatinel,et al.
Design and qualification of a diffractive trifocal optical profile for intraocular lenses
,
2011,
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.
[10]
Ramin Khoramnia,et al.
In vitro optical quality measurements of three intraocular lens models having identical platform
,
2017,
BMC Ophthalmology.
[11]
Myoung Choi,et al.
Optical bench performance of a novel trifocal intraocular lens compared with a multifocal intraocular lens
,
2016,
Clinical ophthalmology.
[12]
C. Choi,et al.
In vitro comparative optical bench analysis of a spherical and aspheric optic design of the same IOL model
,
2017,
BMC Ophthalmology.
[13]
R. Khoramnia,et al.
Clinical Evaluation of Reading Performance Using the Salzburg Reading Desk With a Refractive Rotational Asymmetric Multifocal Intraocular Lens.
,
2016,
Journal of refractive surgery.
[14]
Robert Montés-Micó,et al.
Optical performance of two new trifocal intraocular lenses: through‐focus modulation transfer function and influence of pupil size
,
2014,
Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.
[15]
Helmut Wilhelm,et al.
Digital Pupillometry in Normal Subjects
,
2017,
Neuro-ophthalmology.
[16]
M. Leyland,et al.
Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.
,
2016,
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.