Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of higher order aberrations in recently developed wavefront-shaped IOLs

  • Refractive Surgery
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A new class of enhanced range of vision intraocular lenses (IOLs) has been introduced recently to cope with compromises of diffractive optics in patients aiming for spectacle independence. Few information is available about their optical function. We aimed to analyze higher order aberrations of four of these new wavefront-shaped IOLs under standardized conditions.

Methods

Two recently developed enhanced monofocal and two recently developed enhanced depth of focus IOLs (power 22 D) were analyzed by a Shack–Hartmann sensor in an in-situ model eye according to ISO 11,979 in NaCl with 546 nm. We determined the Zernike polynomials up to the 10th order.

Results

Only spherical aberration (SA) of different orders was considerably modified. Whereas RaySof EMV showed a moderate increase in Z 4–0, Eyhance and Vivity produced a considerable increase of negative Z 4–0. A combination of Z 4–0 and Z 6–0 with an opposite sign was found in LuxSmart.

Conclusion

SAs of different orders are the only relevant Zernike polynomials in this new class of wavefront-shaped IOLs. RaySof EMV proved to be a monofocal IOL with increased positive SA. The central change in radial power and the resulting increase in negative SA in Eyhance IOL might produce some depth of field. The magnitude of SA modification of Vivity and LuxSmart is expected to extend the depth of focus considerably. Surgeons can select among these novel IOLs depending on corneal asphericity and the patient’s wish for spectacle independence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

(Data transparency) yes, from the author upon request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Kamiya K, Hayashi K, Shimizu K, et al (2014) Survey Working Group of the Japanese Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Multifocal intraocular lens explantation: a case series of 50 eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 158(2):215–220.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.010

  2. De Silva SR, Evans JR, Kirthi V et al (2016) Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12(12):CD003169. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003169.pub4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Auffarth GU, Gerl M, Tsai L, et al (2021) Quantum Study Group. Clinical evaluation of a new monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function in patients with cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg 47(2):184–191. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000399

  4. Holladay JT, Piers PA, Koranyi G et al (2002) A new intraocular lens design to reduce spherical aberration of pseudophakic eyes. J Refract Surg 18(6):683–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rocha KM, Vabre L, Chateau N et al (2009) Expanding depth of focus by modifying higher-order aberrations induced by an adaptive optics visual simulator. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1885–1892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.05.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rocha KM (2017) Extended depth of focus IOLs: the next chapter in refractive technology? Editorial. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:146–149. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170217-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schuster AK, Tesarz J, Vossmerbaeumer U (2015) Ocular wavefront analysis of aspheric compared with spherical monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: systematic review with metaanalysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(5):1088–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.04.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rayner (2020) RayOne EMV: first clinical results. https://rayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RayOne-EMV-First-Clinical-Results-1.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2021

  9. Alarcon A, Cánovas C, Koopman B et al (2020) Enhancing the intermediate vision of monofocal intraocular lenses using a higher order aspheric optic. J Refract Surg 36(8):520–527. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20200612-01

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schallhorn JM (2021) Multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a comparison of data from the United States Food and Drug Administration premarket approval trials. J Refract Surg 37(2):98–104. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20201111-02

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Food and Drug Administration (2020) Summary of safety and effectiveness data. AcrySofTM IQ VivityTM Extended Vision Intraocular Lens. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/P930014S126B.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2021

  12. Yi F, Iskander DR, Collins M (2011) Depth of focus and visual acuity with primary and secondary spherical aberration. Vision Res 51(14):1648–1658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Benard Y, Lopez-Gil N, Legras R (2011) Optimizing the subjective depth-of-focus with combinations of fourth- and sixth-order spherical aberration. Vision Res 51(23–24):2471–2477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. MacRae S, Holladay JT, Glasser A et al (2017) Special report: American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force consensus statement for extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 124:139–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. TRIOPTICS GmbH (2021) OptiSpheric. https://trioptics.com/products/optispheric-focal-length-and-radius-measurement/. Accessed 02 May 2021

  16. Mencucci R, Cennamo M, Venturi D et al (2020) Visual outcome, optical quality, and patient satisfaction with a new monofocal IOL, enhanced for intermediate vision: preliminary results. J Cataract Refract Surg 46(3):378–387. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Unsal U, Sabur H (2021) Comparison of new monofocal innovative and standard monofocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification. Int Ophthalmol 41(1):273–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01579-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Read SA, Montés-Micó R et al (2017) The effect of aberrations on objectively assessed image quality and depth of focus. J Vis 17(2):2. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.2.2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Piers PA, Manzanera S, Prieto PM et al (2007) Use of adaptive optics to determine the optimal ocular spherical aberration. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(10):1721–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang L, Koch DD (2020) Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery: review and expert opinion. Ophthalmology S0161–6420(20)30625–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.054

  21. Coassin M, Di Zazzo A, Antonini M et al (2020) Extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses: power calculation and outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 46(11):1554–1560. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Eppig T, Rawer A, Hoffmann P et al (2020) On the chromatic dispersion of hydrophobic and hydrophilic intraocular lenses. Optom Vis Sci 97(4):305–313. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Radmall BR et al (2015) Refractive index and its impact on pseudophakic dysphotopsia. Clin Ophthalmol 9:1353–1358. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S86980.eCollection2015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakajima M, Hiraoka T, Yamamoto T, et al (2016) Differences of longitudinal chromatic aberration (LCA) between eyes with intraocular lenses from different manufacturers. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0156227. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156227. eCollection 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Practice for Refractive Eye Surgery, Sedanstr. 124, 89077, Ulm, Germany

    Ruediger Schmid

  2. Borkenstein & Borkenstein, Private Practice at Privatklinik der Kreuzschwestern, Kreuzgasse 35, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Andreas F. Borkenstein

Authors
  1. Ruediger Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas F. Borkenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Schmid and Borkenstein: concept, evaluation, and writing. Luedtke: data analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruediger Schmid.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmid, R., Borkenstein, A.F. Analysis of higher order aberrations in recently developed wavefront-shaped IOLs. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 260, 609–620 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05362-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05362-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation