Ray propagation imaging and optical quality evaluation of different intraocular lens models

Son, Hyeck-Soo; Łabuz, Grzegorz; Khoramnia, Ramin; Merz, P.; Yildirim, Timur M.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228342

Cited by 23 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors confirmed that the ray propagation could be visualized qualitatively and assessed quantitatively in different IOL models by using the proposed imaging technique (58). Moreover, they found that the image quality of IOLs also depends on light energy distribution (58).…”

Section: Glisteningsmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Son et al performed a study to analyze different types of IOLs by assessing ray propagation while using their proposed visualization technique (58). The authors confirmed that the ray propagation could be visualized qualitatively and assessed quantitatively in different IOL models by using the proposed imaging technique (58). Moreover, they found that the image quality of IOLs also depends on light energy distribution (58).…”

Section: Glisteningsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A narrative review of intraocular lens opacifications: update 2020

Grzybowski¹,

Markeviciute²,

Žemaitienė³

2020

Ann Transl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The opacifications of intraocular lenses (IOLs) can significantly impact patients visual quality.Despite the identification of specific risk factors, manufacturing changes, opacifications are not eliminated.Likewise, more attention in recent studies was paid to possible new risk factors, however one of the most important purposes of the studies remains opacifications effect on visual performance, which could be disturbed in different aspects. The aim of this review is to discuss the main risk factors of IOLs opacification in particular IOL types, and its impact on vision quality. Different risk factors were discussed in the study, including the material of IOLs, the impact of the breakdown of blood-aqueous barrier (BAB), and certain surgeries that can be associated with opacification formation. Glistenings occur more often in a hydrophobic material, however, the changes in water content of the IOLs can significantly reduce the formation of glistenings. The studies showed a significant effect of intraocular injection of exogenous air or gas during Descemet-stripping endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, and pars plana vitrectomy on calcification formation. It raises a concern, as the incidence of these surgeries is increasing. Visual acuity decreases significantly after the calcification in IOLs occurs, and it usually causes IOLs exchange. However, disability glare seems to be more affected in patients with IOLs, which were affected by glistenings than visual acuity. Disability glare is associated with increased levels of straylight, which was widely evaluated in recent studies and it was reported to be a susceptible measurement to detect the presence of IOLs pathology. For future researches, it should be noticed that disability glare and straylight are more appropriate in evaluating IOLs opacification effect on visual quality than visual acuity. While reviewing the main risk factors of IOLs opacifications particular attention must be paid on calcification occurrence in hydrophilic acrylic IOLs after surgeries with intraocular injection of exogenous air or gas.

show abstract

Section: Glisteningsmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Glisteningsmentioning

confidence: 96%

A narrative review of intraocular lens opacifications: update 2020

Grzybowski¹,

Markeviciute²,

Žemaitienė³

2020

Ann Transl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ray propagation of the IOLs was visualized using the same technique as described in a previous study 19 . In short, the study IOL is placed in a lens holder with a 3 mm opening that is submerged in a water tank (1 L) with a 0.01% uorescein solution.…”

Section: Ray Propagation Visualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, a novel diffractive IOL was introduced to the market, the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX, which purportedly has optical properties that qualify it as an EDOF lens. Therefore, the aim of this research was to assess and compare the optical performance of the Proming lens to that of the AT LARA IOL, a widely established EDOF lens [16][17][18] , by measuring the through-focus (TF) modulation transfer function (MTF) values and using the ray-propagation imaging technique 19 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory Analysis and Ray Visualization of Diffractive Optics with Enhanced Intermediate Vision

Son

Łabuz

Khoramnia

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo assess the optical behavior of a new diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and compare its performance to that of an established extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL.MethodsThis study assessed the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX [Eyebright Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China] and the AT LARA 829MP [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany]. An experimental set-up with 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic light (532nm) was used to visualize the IOLs’ ray propagation. In addition, the optical quality of the IOLs was assessed by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at 50lp/mm and 3.0 and 4.5mm apertures on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II [Trioptics GmbH, Germany]. ResultsThe ray propagation of the two IOLs showed two distinct foci. Light intensity assessment revealed that both IOLs allocate more energy to primary than secondary focus. At 3.0mm pupil, the MTF values at 50lp/mm for the primary focus were 0.39 and 0.37, and for the secondary focus, 0.29 and 0.26 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. At 4.5mm pupil, the single-frequency MTF for the primary focus was 0.51 and 0.24 and for the secondary focus 0.21 and 0.15 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively.ConclusionsFrom the optical point of view, the Proming behaved as a low-add bifocal lens; however, its properties did not differ much from the well-established AT LARA EDOF IOL. The AT LARA outperformed the Proming at low defocus (up to 2D), while the latter demonstrated better image quality in the 2-3D range.

show abstract

“…Recently, a novel diffractive IOL was introduced to the market, the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX, which purportedly has optical properties that qualify it as an EDOF lens. Therefore, the aim of this research was to assess and compare the optical performance of the Proming lens to that of the AT LARA IOL, a widely established EDOF lens [ 16 – 18 ], by measuring the through-focus (TF) modulation transfer function (MTF) values and using the ray-propagation imaging technique [ 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory analysis and ray visualization of diffractive optics with enhanced intermediate vision

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To assess the optical behavior of a new diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and compare its performance to that of an established extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL. Methods This study assessed the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX [Eyebright Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China] and the AT LARA 829MP [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany]. An experimental set-up with 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic light (532 nm) was used to visualize the IOLs’ ray propagation. In addition, the optical quality of the IOLs was assessed by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at 50lp/mm and 3.0 and 4.5 mm apertures on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II [Trioptics GmbH, Germany]. Results The ray propagation of the two IOLs showed two distinct foci. Light intensity assessment revealed that both IOLs allocate more energy to primary than secondary focus. At 3.0 mm pupil, the MTF values at 50lp/mm for the primary focus were 0.39 and 0.37, and for the secondary focus, 0.29 and 0.26 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. At 4.5 mm pupil, the single-frequency MTF for the primary focus was 0.51 and 0.24 and for the secondary focus 0.21 and 0.15 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. Conclusions When tested with an aberration-free model cornea under monochromatic conditions, the Proming behaved as a low-add bifocal lens; however, its properties did not differ much from the well-established AT LARA EDOF IOL. The AT LARA outperformed the Proming at low defocus (up to 2D), while the latter demonstrated better image quality in the 2-3D range.

show abstract

Ray propagation imaging and optical quality evaluation of different intraocular lens models

Cited by 23 publications

References 32 publications

A narrative review of intraocular lens opacifications: update 2020

A narrative review of intraocular lens opacifications: update 2020

Laboratory Analysis and Ray Visualization of Diffractive Optics with Enhanced Intermediate Vision

Laboratory analysis and ray visualization of diffractive optics with enhanced intermediate vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About