[In vitro optical assessment of three types of non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses]

Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2024 Apr 28:60:16-24. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112142-20240226-00082. Online ahead of print.
[Article in Chinese]

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the in vitro optical performance of three types of non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: Experimental study. Three Vivity IOLs, three Eyhance IOLs, and three ES60 IOLs were included. The professional optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO 2 and an ISO-2 corneal model were applied. The through-focus modulation transfer function (MTF) and predicted visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) of different spatial frequencies and different focuses under apertures of 3.0 mm and 4.5 mm were recorded. The aspheric monofocal (Tecnis ZCB00), diffractive EDoF (Tecnis Symfony), and trifocus (STF1) IOLs, as well as the lowest visual requirement criteria of EDoF IOLs of American Academy of Ophthalmology served as assessment controls. Results: For the 3.0-mm aperture, the peak value of the MTF was highest with ZCB00, followed by Eyhance, ES60, Vivity, Symfony, and STF1. All experimental non-diffractive EDoF IOLs had two MTF peaks, and the distance between both peaks was longest with Vivity (1.76 D), followed by ES60 (1.43 D) and Eyhance (1.36 D). Among the control IOLs, Symfony had two MTF peaks, and the peak MTF of the intermediate focus was highest. STF1 had three MTF peaks, and the peak MTF of the near focus was highest. For the 4.5-mm aperture, the ranking of the MTF peak of the six types of IOLs was the same as that for the 3.0-mm aperture. Vivity had an increased MTF peak of the distance focus, but a decreased intermediate focus MTF peak, while the MTF peaks of the distance, intermediate, and near focuses in the other IOLs decreased, compared to those for the 3.0-mm aperture. The predicted visual acuity of the distance focus of the three types of non-diffractive EDoF IOLs was all better than 0.0. The predicted visual acuity of the intermediate focus of the Vivity IOL and the ES60 IOL was 0.11 and 0.05 better than that of the Eyhance IOL, respectively. Based on the predicted visual acuity of 0.2, Vivity and ES60 had a depth of focus of at least 0.50 D exceeding ZCB00, while Eyhance had a depth of focus of 0.40 D exceeding ZCB00. Conclusion: In the experiments in vitro, the three types of non-diffractive EDoF IOLs exhibited varying degrees of intermediate to near focus optical performance while maintaining distance focus optical performance. The Eyhance IOL showed better distance focus optical performance than ES60 and Vivity IOL. The Vivity IOL and the ES60 IOL showed better depth of focus extensions than the Eyhance IOL and met the lowest visual requirement criteria of EDoF IOLs of American Academy of Ophthalmology.

目的: 探讨3种非衍射型景深延长型(EDoF)人工晶状体(IOL)的体外光学性能。 方法: 实验研究。纳入3种非衍射型EDoF IOL(Vivity IOL、Eyhance IOL和ES60 IOL)各3枚,使用专业光学检测设备OptiSpheric® IOL Pro 2型成像测试平台和ISO-2角膜模型(0.28 μm球差),分别记录3.0和4.5 mm孔径时、不同空间频率、不同焦点的调制传递函数(MTF)值以及模拟视力(以最小分辨角对数记录),以单焦点非球面IOL(ZCB00 IOL)、衍射型EDoF IOL(Symfony IOL)和三焦点IOL(STF1 IOL)以及美国眼科学会的EDoF IOL最低视觉要求标准作为评估对照。 结果: 3.0 mm孔径时,MTF峰值由高至低的IOL依次是ZCB00、Eyhance、ES60、Vivity、Symfony和STF1 IOL。3种非衍射型EDoF IOL均存在2个MTF峰值,焦峰间隔由大至小的IOL依次为Vivity(1.76 D)、ES60(1.43 D)、Eyhance IOL(1.36 D)。在对照IOL中,Symfony IOL存在2个峰值,中焦点MTF峰值高于其他IOL;STF1 IOL存在3个峰值,近焦点MTF峰值高于其他IOL。孔径增至4.5 mm时,6种IOL的MTF峰值由高至低的次序同3.0 mm孔径时;Vivity IOL远焦点MTF峰值较3.0 mm孔径时增高,而中焦点MTF峰值降低;其他IOL远、中、近焦点MTF峰值均降低。3种非衍射型EDoF IOL的远焦点模拟视力均优于0.0,Vivity和ES60 IOL的中焦点模拟视力分别较Eyhance IOL好0.11和0.05。以模拟视力0.2为基准,Vivity和ES60 IOL具备超过ZCB00 IOL至少0.50 D的焦深,而Eyhance IOL具备超过ZCB00 IOL 0.40 D的焦深。 结论: 3种非衍射型EDoF IOL在体外维持远焦点光学性能的基础上,具备不同的中、近焦点光学性能;体外检测Eyhance IOL的远焦点光学性能更优;Vivity和ES60 IOL的焦深延长作用更优,且符合美国眼科学会的EDoF IOL最低视觉要求标准。.

Publication types

  • English Abstract