Cargando…
Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses
PURPOSE: To compare the resolution and optical quality of the ReSTOR(®) +3.0 D and ReSTOR +2.5 D multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with the AT LISA(®) tri and FineVision(®) trifocal IOLs. METHODS: Resolution, image quality, and photic phenomena were evaluated in the AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR +3.0 D an...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206402/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25342881 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S66760 |
_version_ | 1782340817886642176 |
---|---|
author | Carson, Daniel Hill, Warren E Hong, Xin Karakelle, Mutlu |
author_facet | Carson, Daniel Hill, Warren E Hong, Xin Karakelle, Mutlu |
author_sort | Carson, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To compare the resolution and optical quality of the ReSTOR(®) +3.0 D and ReSTOR +2.5 D multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with the AT LISA(®) tri and FineVision(®) trifocal IOLs. METHODS: Resolution, image quality, and photic phenomena were evaluated in the AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR +3.0 D and +2.5 D multifocal IOLs and compared with the AT LISA tri 839MP and FineVision Micro F12 trifocal IOLs, using a Badal optometer and a Snellen visual acuity chart. Simulated headlight images were obtained using a modulation transfer function (MTF) bench and a 50 μm pinhole target. MTF values, using vertical and horizontal slits, were determined at far, intermediate, and near distances. RESULTS: Resolution at 20/40 Snellen visual acuity equivalence was attainable over nearly the entire viewing distance range with the AT LISA tri and FineVision IOLs, but background shadows were more prominent with the AT LISA tri and FineVision IOLs than with the ReSTOR IOLs. Distance MTF peaks at 20/20 Snellen–equivalent spatial frequency were greatest for ReSTOR +2.5 D and ReSTOR +3.0 D IOLs. The near MTF peak occurred at 53 cm with ReSTOR +2.5 D and had a 20/20 Snellen–equivalent value that was lower than the near peaks of the other models but higher than the intermediate foci of the trifocal IOLs. CONCLUSION: AT LISA tri and FineVision trifocal IOLs achieved a useful third focus for intermediate vision but were associated with increased background halos and reduced distance visual quality compared with ReSTOR +2.5 D and +3.0 D multifocal IOLs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4206402 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42064022014-10-23 Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses Carson, Daniel Hill, Warren E Hong, Xin Karakelle, Mutlu Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: To compare the resolution and optical quality of the ReSTOR(®) +3.0 D and ReSTOR +2.5 D multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with the AT LISA(®) tri and FineVision(®) trifocal IOLs. METHODS: Resolution, image quality, and photic phenomena were evaluated in the AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR +3.0 D and +2.5 D multifocal IOLs and compared with the AT LISA tri 839MP and FineVision Micro F12 trifocal IOLs, using a Badal optometer and a Snellen visual acuity chart. Simulated headlight images were obtained using a modulation transfer function (MTF) bench and a 50 μm pinhole target. MTF values, using vertical and horizontal slits, were determined at far, intermediate, and near distances. RESULTS: Resolution at 20/40 Snellen visual acuity equivalence was attainable over nearly the entire viewing distance range with the AT LISA tri and FineVision IOLs, but background shadows were more prominent with the AT LISA tri and FineVision IOLs than with the ReSTOR IOLs. Distance MTF peaks at 20/20 Snellen–equivalent spatial frequency were greatest for ReSTOR +2.5 D and ReSTOR +3.0 D IOLs. The near MTF peak occurred at 53 cm with ReSTOR +2.5 D and had a 20/20 Snellen–equivalent value that was lower than the near peaks of the other models but higher than the intermediate foci of the trifocal IOLs. CONCLUSION: AT LISA tri and FineVision trifocal IOLs achieved a useful third focus for intermediate vision but were associated with increased background halos and reduced distance visual quality compared with ReSTOR +2.5 D and +3.0 D multifocal IOLs. Dove Medical Press 2014-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4206402/ /pubmed/25342881 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S66760 Text en © 2014 Carson et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Carson, Daniel Hill, Warren E Hong, Xin Karakelle, Mutlu Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses |
title | Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses |
title_full | Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses |
title_fullStr | Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses |
title_full_unstemmed | Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses |
title_short | Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses |
title_sort | optical bench performance of acrysof(®) iq restor(®), at lisa(®) tri, and finevision(®) intraocular lenses |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206402/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25342881 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S66760 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT carsondaniel opticalbenchperformanceofacrysofiqrestoratlisatriandfinevisionintraocularlenses AT hillwarrene opticalbenchperformanceofacrysofiqrestoratlisatriandfinevisionintraocularlenses AT hongxin opticalbenchperformanceofacrysofiqrestoratlisatriandfinevisionintraocularlenses AT karakellemutlu opticalbenchperformanceofacrysofiqrestoratlisatriandfinevisionintraocularlenses |