nach oben

Erschienen in:

03.10.2019 | Original Paper

Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses

verfasst von: Carlos Palomino-Bautista, Rubén Sánchez-Jean, David Carmona-González, David P. Piñero, Ainhoa Molina-Martín

Erschienen in: International Ophthalmology | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate different intraocular lens (IOL) designs and to determine whether extended depth of focus (EDOF) lenses provide a higher depth of field (DOF) than the rest considering both subjective and objective measurements.

Methods

A total of 100 eyes undergoing cataract surgery were divided into six groups depending on the IOL implanted: bifocal designs were Tecnis ZMB and ZLB (Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA), trifocal designs were Finevision (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium) and AT LISA Tri (Carl Zeiss Meditec., Jena, Germany) and EDOF designs were Symfony (Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA) and MiniWell (SIFI MedTech, Catania, Italy). Subjective DOF was obtained from defocus curves for the range of vergences which provide a VA over 0.1 LogMAR and 0.2 LogMAR. Aberrometry was measured and Visual Strehl Optical Transference Function (90%) was used to quantify objectively the DOF.

Results

Symfony IOL group showed better subjective and objective DOF compared to the rest of IOL groups, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). Comparison between subjective and objective DOF showed that subjective measures were higher for all IOLs, being these differences statistically significant for all groups when compared with objective measures (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Objective and subjective measures of DOF are not comparable due to differences in methodologies and criterions to define the level of degradation acceptance. Nevertheless, both objective and subjective measures demonstrate a greater DOF for EDOF designs compared to bifocal and trifocal IOLs, being the Symfony IOL the one providing higher levels of subjective and objective DOF.

Breyer DRH, Kaymak H, Axe T et al (2017) Multifocal intraocular lenses and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Asia-Pacific J Ophthalmol 6:339–349. https://doi.org/10.22608/APO.2017186 CrossRef

Wang B, Ciuffreda KJ (2006) Depth-of-focus of the human eye: theory and clinical implications. Surv Ophthalmol 51:75–85CrossRef

Atchison DA, Charman WN, Woods RL (1997) Subjective depth-of-focus of the eye. Optom Vis Sci 74:511–520. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199707000-00019 CrossRefPubMed

Leube A, Schilling T, Ohlendorf A et al (2018) Individual neural transfer function affects the prediction of subjective depth of focus. Sci Rep 8:1919. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20344-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wold JE, Hu A, Chen S, Glasser A (2003) Subjective and objective measurement of human accommodative amplitude. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:1878–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-3350(03)00667-9 CrossRefPubMed

Gupta N, Wolffsohn JSW, Naroo SA (2008) Optimizing measurement of subjective amplitude of accommodation with defocus curves. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1329–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.04.031 CrossRefPubMed

Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS (2007) Is randomisation necessary for measuring defocus curves in pre-presbyopes? Contact Lens Anterior Eye 30:119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2007.02.005 CrossRefPubMed

Win-Hall DM, Glasser A (2009) Objective accommodation measurements in pseudophakic subjects using an autorefractor and an aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.10.033 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Langenbucher A, Huber S, Nguyen NX et al (2003) Measurement of accommodation after implantation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:677–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01893-X CrossRefPubMed

10.

Barišić A, Patel S, Gabric N, Feinbaum CG (2017) The clinical depth of field achievable with trifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses: theoretical considerations and proof of concept clinical results. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 255:367–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3566-9 CrossRef

11.

Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Naroo SA et al (2012) Multifocal intraocular lens differentiation using defocus curves. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:3920–3926. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-9234 CrossRef

12.

Escandón-García S, Ribeiro FJ, McAlinden C et al (2018) Through-focus vision performance and light disturbances of 3 new intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction. J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6165493 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Ganesh S, Brar S, Pawar A, Relekar KJ (2018) Visual and refractive outcomes following bilateral implantation of extended range of vision intraocular lens with micromonovision. J Ophthalmol 2018:7321794. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7321794 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Yi F, Iskander DR, Collins MJ (2010) Estimation of the depth of focus from wavefront measurements. J Vis 10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.4.3 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tahir HJ, Tong JL, Geissler S et al (2010) Effects of accommodation training on accommodation and depth of focus in an eye implanted with a crystalens intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 26:772–779. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20100921-02 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Pérez-Merino P, Birkenfeld J, Dorronsoro C et al (2014) Aberrometry in patients implanted with accommodative intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 157:1077–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.02.013 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Marsack JD, Thibos LN, Applegate RA (2004) Metrics of optical quality derived from wave aberrations predict visual performance. J Vis 4:8. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.4.8 CrossRef

18.

Molebna O, Molebny S, Robert Iskander D, et al (2014) Objective DoF measurement based on through-focus augmented VSOTF. Conference: 7th European coinciding with the 1st World Meeting in Visual and Physiological Optics, At Wroclaw, Poland

19.

Marcos S, Moreno E, Navarro R (1999) The depth-of-field of the human eye from objective and subjective measurements. Vis Res 39:2039–2049. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00317-4 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Castillo Gómez A, Verdejo del Rey A, Palomino Bautista C et al (2012) Principles and clinical applications of ray-tracing aberrometry. Emmetropia 999:96–110

21.

Atchison DA, Fisher SW, Pedersen CA, Ridall PG (2005) Noticeable, troublesome and objectionable limits of blur. Vis Res 45:1967–1974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.01.022 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Woods RL, Colvin CR, Vera-Diaz FA, Peli E (2010) A relationship between tolerance of blur and personality. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:6077–6082. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.09-5013 CrossRef

23.

Kamlesh Dadeya S, Kaushik S (2001) Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. Can J Ophthalmol 36:197–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-4182(01)80040-5 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Post CT (1992) Comparison of depth of focus and low-contrast acuities for monofocal versus multifocal intraocular lens patients at 1 year. Ophthalmology 99:1658–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(92)31735-X CrossRefPubMed

25.

Langenbucher A, Seitz B, Huber S et al (2003) Theoretical and measured pseudophakic accommodation after implantation of a new accommodative posterior chamber intraocular lens. Arch Ophthalmol 121:1722–1727. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.121.12.1722 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Domínguez-Vicent A, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ et al (2016) In vitro optical quality comparison between the Mini WELL ready progressive multifocal and the TECNIS Symfony. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254:1387–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3240-7 CrossRef

27.

Chang M, Kang S-Y, Kim HM (2012) Which keratometer is most reliable for correcting astigmatism with toric intraocular lenses? Korean J Ophthalmol 26:10. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2012.26.1.10 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Knorz MC, Claessens D, Schaefer RC et al (1993) Evaluation of contrast acuity and defocus curve in bifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 19:513–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-3350(13)80616-5 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Sergienko NM, Kondratenko YN, Tutchenko NN (2008) Depth of focus in pseudophakic eyes. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-008-0923-3 CrossRef

30.

Marsack JD, Thibos LN, Applegate RA (2004) Metrics of optical quality derived from wave aberrations predict visual performance. J Vis 4:322–328. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.4.8 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Win-Hall DM, Glasser A (2008) Objective accommodation measurements in prepresbyopic eyes using an autorefractor and an aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:774–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.12.033 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Marcos S, Navarro R, Ferro M (1995) Through focus image quality of eyes implanted with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses. Opt Eng 34:772–779. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.191818 CrossRef

33.

Wolffsohn JS, Naroo SA, Motwani NK et al (2006) Subjective and objective performance of the Lenstec KH-3500 “accommodative” intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol 90:693–696. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2006.090951 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Ciuffreda KJ, Wang B, Vasudevan B (2007) Conceptual model of human blur perception. Vis Res 47:1245–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.12.001 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses
verfasst von: Carlos Palomino-Bautista
Rubén Sánchez-Jean
David Carmona-González
David P. Piñero
Ainhoa Molina-Martín
Publikationsdatum: 03.10.2019
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: International Ophthalmology / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01186-6

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

08.04.2024 | Therapieverfahren in der Augenheilkunde | CME

Update Augenheilkunde

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

Ophthalmika in der Schwangerschaft

Operative Therapie und Keimnachweis bei endogener Endophthalmitis

Bakterielle endogene Endophthalmitis

So erreichen Sie eine bestmögliche Wundheilung der Kornea

Update Augenheilkunde

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Error in measurement of intraocular pressure with the Icare and IcarePRO

Sagittal height differences of disposable soft contact lenses

Factors affecting pain in patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery

Changes in corneal endothelial cell shape after treatment with one drop of ROCK inhibitor

Mining the proliferative diabetic retinopathy-associated genes and pathways by integrated bioinformatic analysis

Intraocular lens explantation in Spain: indications and outcomes at a tertiary referral center from 2010 to 2018

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

Ophthalmika in der Schwangerschaft

Operative Therapie und Keimnachweis bei endogener Endophthalmitis

Bakterielle endogene Endophthalmitis

So erreichen Sie eine bestmögliche Wundheilung der Kornea

Update Augenheilkunde