Modulation transfer function analysis of different optical designs in monofocal, bifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses of an identical platform

Session Details

Session Title: Pseudophakic IOLs/ Multifocals II

Session Date/Time: Tuesday 16/09/2014 | 08:00-10:30

Paper Time: 08:00

Venue: Boulevard A

First Author: : T.Tandogan GERMANY

Co Author(s): :    G. Auffarth   J. Weindler   F. Kretz        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Optical bench analysis of three different optic designs of hydrophilic, acrylic, intraocular lens (IOL) models based on the same IOL platform.

Setting:

International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC) & David J Apple International Laboratory of Ophthalmic Pathology ,Dept. of Ophthalmology, Univ. of Heidelberg, Germany.

Methods:

In a laboratory study we compared the modulation transfer function (MTF), effective focal length (EFL) and autofocus measurements and through focus scan (TFS) diagrams of three different IOL models based on the same platform. For each lens model the measurements were performed for 5 IOLs with a dioptric power of 21 per group and repeated 5 times each. A United States Air Force (USAF) target picture is used to document the image quality. The analyzed IOLs were single-piece design, of hydrophilic acrylic (25 %) material with hydrophobic surface; the monofocal aspheric IOL 409 M, the bifocal diffractive aspheric 809M with +3.75 D near add at the IOL plane and the trifocal diffractive aspheric IOL 839M with +3.33 D near add and +1.66 D intermediate add at the IOL plane (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany). Optical bench analyses were performed with the OptiSpheric IOL (Trioptics, Germany) optical bench. For visualization of the light path pictures were taken of a green laser beam passing through the IOL optics and its projection.

Results:

In the TFS analyses we could clearly find a single far peak for the monofocal, a far and a near peak for the bifocal and a near, intermediate and far peak for the trifocal IOL. Mean sagital MTF (100lp/mm far focus) was 0.607 for the monofocal, 0.328 for the bifocal and 0.236 for the trifocal IOL. There was a statistical significant difference of the MTF values between the three groups (Kruskal-Wallis). None of the IOLs showed a statistical significant difference between the measured IOL power and the labeling.

Conclusions:

The monofocal IOL showed the best image quality for a single focal point with the highest MTF values. Comparing the near focal points, the bifocal IOL offers the best near image quality compared to the other two groups. For intermediate distance the trifocal IOL offers the best focal point with the clearest image through the USAF target picture analysis from far to near distance. In theory with those IOL models an individual fitting can be performed for each patient, depending on their individual needs.

Financial Interest:

One or more of the authors... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors... travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors... travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors... research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors... research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company