Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2017; 234(12): 1533-1539
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-112860
Experimentelle Studie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Auswirkungen der Nahaddition auf die optische Qualität von diffraktiven multifokalen Intraokularlinsen – eine Laborstudie an der optischen Bank

Impact of Near Addition on the Optical Quality of Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses – a Laboratory Study Using an Optical Bench
Tamer Tandogan
1   Augenklinik, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Heidelberg
,
Gerd Uwe Auffarth
1   Augenklinik, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Heidelberg
,
Stephanie Liebing
1   Augenklinik, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Heidelberg
,
Chul Young Choi
1   Augenklinik, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Heidelberg
2   Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Ramin Khoramnia
1   Augenklinik, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) und David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Heidelberg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht 20 April 2017

akzeptiert 30 May 2017

Publication Date:
12 October 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Analyse und Vergleich der optischen Qualität diffraktiver multifokaler Intraokularlinsen (IOL) mit unterschiedlichen Nahadditionen mithilfe einer optischen Bank im Rahmen einer Laborstudie.

Methode Die AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® + 2.5 D SV25T0 (Alcon, USA), die AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® + 3.0 D SN6AD1 (Alcon, USA) sowie die TECNIS® ZMA00 und ZMB00 (Abbott Medical Optics, USA) mit einer Brechkraft von 21 dpt für die Ferne wurden an der optischen Bank OptiSpheric® IOL PRO (TRIOPTICS GmbH, Wedel) untersucht. Das optische Design dieser Linsen ist ähnlich, die Modelle unterscheiden sich allerdings hinsichtlich ihrer Nahaddition: Die AcrySof IQ ReSTOR + 2.5 D hat eine Nahaddition von + 2,5 dpt, die AcrySof IQ ReSTOR + 3.0 D eine Nahaddition von + 3,0 dpt und beide TECNIS-Linsen eine Nahaddition von + 4,0 dpt. Untersucht wurden die Fläche unterhalb der Kurve der Modulationstransferfunktion (Modulation Transfer Function Area, MTFA) und die Strehl Ratio. Weiterhin wurden die Abbildungseigenschaften der IOL mithilfe von USAF-Target-Bildern (USAF: United States Air Force) qualitativ miteinander verglichen.

Ergebnis Die MTFA-Werte für den Fernfokus waren im Median 47,85/42,06/33,57 (2,5 dpt/3,0 dpt/4,0 dpt). Für den Intermediärfokus erreichten die MTFA-Werte 11,05/9,54/8,60. Die MTFA-Werte für den Nahfokus waren 20,11/29,50/33,39. Die Strehl Ratio des Fernfokus betrug 0,48/0,42/0,29. Für den Intermediärfokus war die Strehl Ratio 0,11/0,10/0,09. Die Strehl Ratio des Nahfokus betrug 0,20/0,30/0,34. Die USAF-Target-Bilder korrelierten mit diesen Messwerten.

Schlussfolgerung Für den Nahfokus erzielen die ZMA00 und ZMB00 die besten Ergebnisse, während die IQ ReSTOR + 2.5 D am schlechtesten abschneidet. Im Intermediärbereich erreichen alle IOL ähnliche Ergebnisse. Für den Fernfokus erzielt die IQ ReSTOR + 2.5 D die besten Ergebnisse. Da heutzutage diverse Nahadditionen bei diffraktiven multifokalen IOL zur Verfügung stehen, kann die Wahl der richtigen Linse individuell auf die Bedürfnisse jedes Patienten abgestimmt werden.

Abstract

Purpose To analyse the optical quality of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with different near additions in a laboratory study.

Methods We analysed the AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® + 2.5 D SV25T0 (Alcon Laboratories inc., Fort Worth, USA), the AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® + 3.0 D SN6AD1 (Alcon, USA) and the TECNIS® ZMA00 and ZMB00 (Abbott Medical Optics, USA) with a power of 21D for the distance, using the OptiSpheric® IOL PRO optical bench (TRIOPTICS, Wedel, Germany). The lenses have a similar optical design but different near additions: The ReSTOR + 2.5 D has a near addition of + 2.5 D, the ReSTOR + 3.0 D has a near addition of + 3.0 D and both TECNIS IOLs have a near addition of + 4.0 D. We evaluated the modulation transfer function area (MTFA) and the Strehl ratio. Additionally the optical qualities of the IOL were compared using USAF (United States Air Force)-Target pictures.

Results The MTFA at the far focus (ReSTOR + 2.5 D/ReSTOR + 3.0 D/TECNIS) was 47.85/42.06/33.57. The MTFA was 11.05/9.54/8.60 for intermediate distances. MTFA at the near focus was 20.11/29.50/33.39. The Strehl ratio was 0.48/0.42/0.29 at the far focus, 0.11/0.10/0.09 at the intermediate focus and 0.20/0.30/0.34 at the near focus. The USAF Target pictures correlated with these measurements.

Conclusion At the near focus, the TECNIS ZMA00 and ZMB00 performed the best, while the ReSTOR + 2.5 D performed the worst. At the intermediate distance, all IOLs achieved similar results. At the far focus, the ReSTOR + 2.5 D performed the best. Surgeons can choose the right IOL for the patientsʼ individual needs, because a broad range of near additions in diffractive multifocal IOLs is available these days.

Schlüsselwörter

Katarakt - multifokale Intraokularlinsen - refraktive Chirurgie - MTF - Strehl Ratio - optische Bank

Key words

cataract - refractive surgery - IOL metrology - multifocal intraocular lenses - MTF - Strehl ratio
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kohnen T, Baumeister M, Kook D. et al. Cataract surgery with implantation of an artificial lens. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2009; 106: 695-702
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Agresta B, Knorz MC, Kohnen T. et al. Distance and near visual acuity improvement after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with presbyopia: a systematic review. J Refract Surg 2012; 28: 426-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Attia MS, Auffarth GU, Khoramnia R. et al. Near and intermediate reading performance of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens using a reading desk. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41: 2707-2714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Attia MS, Khoramnia R, Auffarth GU. et al. Near and intermediate visual and reading performance of patients with a multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lens using an electronic reading desk. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016; 42: 582-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bilbao-Calabuig R, Gonzalez-Lopez F, Amparo F. et al. Comparison between mix-and-match implantation of bifocal intraocular lenses and bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 2016; 32: 659-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Boujan A, Tandogan T, Pinelli G. et al. [Clinical results after implantation of a new diffractive, multifocal intraocular lens with a reduced near add power (+ 2.75 D)]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2016; 233: 633-638
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cochener B, Lafuma A, Khoshnood B. et al. Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis. Clin Ophthalmol 2011; 5: 45-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cochener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P. et al. Clinical outcomes with a trifocal intraocular lens: a multicenter study. J Refract Surg 2014; 30: 762-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kohnen T, Titke C, Bohm M. Trifocal intraocular lens implantation to treat visual demands in various distances following lens removal. Am J Ophthalmol 2016; 161: 71-77.e71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kretz FT, Attia MA, Linz K. et al. [Level of binocular pseudoaccommodation in patients implanted with an apodised, diffractive and trifocal multifocal intraocular lens]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2015; 232: 947-952
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kretz FT, Gerl M, Gerl R. et al. Clinical evaluation of a new pupil independent diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with a + 2.75 D near addition: a European multicentre study. Br J Ophthalmol 2015; 99: 1655-1659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kretz FT, Koss MJ, Auffarth GU. Intermediate and near visual acuity of an aspheric, bifocal, diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with + 3.25 D near addition. J Refract Surg 2015; 31: 295-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lane SS, Morris M, Nordan L. et al. Multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2006; 19: 89-105 vi
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Linz K, Attia MS, Khoramnia R. et al. Clinical evaluation of reading performance using the Salzburg reading desk with a refractive rotational asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2016; 32: 526-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mojzis P, Kukuckova L, Majerova K. et al. Comparative analysis of the visual performance after cataract surgery with implantation of a bifocal or trifocal diffractive IOL. J Refract Surg 2014; 30: 666-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Petermeier K, Szurman P. [Subjective and objective outcome following implantation of the apodized diffractive AcrySof ReSTOR]. Ophthalmologe 2007; 104: 399-404 406–408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rosen E, Alio JL, Dick HB. et al. Efficacy and safety of multifocal intraocular lenses following cataract and refractive lens exchange: Metaanalysis of peer-reviewed publications. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016; 42: 310-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Santhiago MR, Netto MV, Barreto J. et al. Wavefront analysis and modulation transfer function of three multifocal intraocular lenses. Indian J Ophthalmol 2010; 58: 109-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Auffarth GU, Dick HB. [Multifocal intraocular lenses. A review]. Ophthalmologe 2001; 98: 127-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Auffarth GU, Rabsilber TM, Kohnen T. et al. [Design and optical principles of multifocal lenses]. Ophthalmologe 2008; 105: 522-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Chang JS, Ng JC, Chan VK. et al. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after refractive lens exchange with a single-piece diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Ophthalmol 2014; 2014: 458296
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ehmer A, Rabsilber TM, Mannsfeld A. et al. [Influence of different multifocal intraocular lens concepts on retinal stray light parameters]. Ophthalmologe 2011; 108: 952-956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Haring G, Dick HB, Krummenauer F. et al. Subjective photic phenomena with refractive multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses. Results of a multicenter questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 245-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mester U, Vaterrodt T, Goes F. et al. Impact of personality characteristics on patient satisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation: results from the “happy patient study”. J Refract Surg 2014; 30: 674-678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Carson D, Hill WE, Hong X. et al. Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 2014; 8: 2105-2113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lee S, Choi M, Xu Z. et al. Optical bench performance of a novel trifocal intraocular lens compared with a multifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 2016; 10: 1031-1038
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pieh S, Fiala W, Malz A. et al. In vitro strehl ratios with spherical, aberration-free, average, and customized spherical aberration-correcting intraocular lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50: 1264-1270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rawer R, Stork W, Spraul CW. et al. Imaging quality of intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 1618-1631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tandogan T, Khoramnia R, Choi CY. et al. Optical and material analysis of opacified hydrophilic intraocular lenses after explantation: a laboratory study. BMC Ophthalmol 2015; 15: 170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tandogan T, Auffarth GU, Choi CY. et al. In vitro comparative optical bench analysis of a spherical and aspheric optic design of the same IOL model. BMC Ophthalmol 2017; 17: 9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Schröder G, Treiber H. Vogel Business Media. Technische Optik: Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Würzburg: Vogel Buchverlag; 2007
    Google Scholar