Image quality with multifocal intraocular lenses and the effect of pupil size: Comparison of refractive and hybrid refractive–diffractive designs

PURPOSE: To analyze the image quality with a refractive and 2 hybrid refractive–diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in vitro to determine the IOL modulation transfer function (MTF) following the EN‐ISO international standard for distance and near vision and to study the IOLs' behavior with different pupil sizes. SETTING: Fundación Oftalmológica del Mediterráneo, Valencia, Spain. METHODS: This study evaluated 4 IOLs: the hybrid refractive–diffractive AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 (Alcon) and Tecnis ZM900 (AMO), the refractive ReZoom NXG (AMO), and the monofocal AcrySof SN60WF (Alcon). The MTF was calculated from the cross‐line spread function recorded with the OPAL Vector System (Image Science Ltd.) using fast Fourier transform techniques. The artificial eye model simulated in vivo conditions of the anterior chamber and included an artificial cornea and physiological solution, in which the IOLs were positioned. The pupil sizes varied between 2.0 mm and 5.0 mm in steps of 0.5 mm. RESULTS: For distance vision and small pupils (2.0 to 3.5 mm), the refractive IOL provided better image quality than the 2 hybrid IOLs. When the pupil was larger, the distance vision was similar with all IOLs. The 2 hybrid IOLs gave better image quality than the refractive IOL for near vision with any pupil size. With the refractive IOL and pupils smaller than 3.5 mm, near focusing did not occur, resulting in poor image quality. Of the hybrid IOLs, the AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 provided better distance image quality and the Tecnis ZM900 provided better near image quality. CONCLUSIONS: The refractive IOL gave better image quality than the hybrid IOLs at distance and with small pupils. With pupils larger than 3.5 mm, the quality was similar. Hybrid IOLs gave significantly better image quality for near vision with all pupil sizes. AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 IOLs give better distance vision than Tecnis ZM900 IOLs; the latter gave better near vision. The reference monofocal IOL provided better distance images than any multifocal IOL with all pupil sizes.

[2]  P. Chiam,et al.  ReSTOR intraocular lens implantation in cataract surgery: Quality of vision , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[3]  Hiroshi Uozato,et al.  Modulation transfer function and pupil size in multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses in vitro , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

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

[5]  J. Malo,et al.  Standard criterion for fluctuations of modulation transfer function in the human eye: application to disposable contact lenses , 1997, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[6]  Wilhelm Stork,et al.  Imaging quality of intraocular lenses , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[7]  S. Pieh,et al.  Comparison of pseudoaccommodation and visual quality between a diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lens , 1998, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[8]  M. Leyland,et al.  Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[9]  Carlos E Souza,et al.  Visual performance of AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL: a prospective comparative trial. , 2006, American journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  J C Javitt,et al.  Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: a multinational clinical trial evaluating clinical, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

[11]  George C. Woo,et al.  CLINICAL VISUAL OPTICS , 1991 .

[12]  F Hayashi,et al.  Correlation between pupillary size and intraocular lens decentration and visual acuity of a zonal-progressive multifocal lens and a monofocal lens. , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[13]  J. Goodman Introduction to Fourier optics , 1969 .

[14]  N. Shoji,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a 5.5 mm three‐zone refractive multifocal intraocular lens , 1996, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[15]  J L Encinas,et al.  AMO Array multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses: Long‐term follow‐up , 1998, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[16]  Jonathan C. Javitt,et al.  Cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation , 2000 .

[17]  Stephen S. Lane,et al.  Optical performance of 3 intraocular lens designs in the presence of decentration , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[18]  Paolo Sirotti,et al.  Analysis of the optical quality of intraocular lenses. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  Thomas Kohnen,et al.  European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens. , 2006, Ophthalmology.

[20]  Optical Transfer Functions , 1993 .

[21]  Markus Sticker,et al.  Quantitative performance of bifocal and multifocal intraocular lenses in a model eye: point spread function in multifocal intraocular lenses. , 2002, Archives of ophthalmology.

[22]  W. Charman,et al.  Theoretical and practical performance of a concentric bifocal intraocular implant lens , 1998, Vision Research.