Ocular Aberrations and Contrast Sensitivity in Eyes Implanted with Aspheric and Spherical Intraocular Lenses

Hong Seok Kim; Sang Woo Kim; Byung Jin Ha; Eung Kweon Kim; Tae-im Kim

doi:10.3341/jkos.2008.49.8.1256

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.49(8) > 1008045

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Kim, Ha, Kim, and Kim: Ocular Aberrations and Contrast Sensitivity in Eyes Implanted with Aspheric and Spherical Intraocular Lenses

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2008;49(8):1256-1262.

Published online: 7 September 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2008.49.8.1256

Ocular Aberrations and Contrast Sensitivity in Eyes Implanted with Aspheric and Spherical Intraocular Lenses

Hong Seok Kim, M.D.¹, Sang Woo Kim, M.D.², Byung Jin Ha, M.D.³, Eung Kweon Kim, M.D.¹, Tae-im Kim, M.D.¹

Vision Research Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Yonsei Uniiversity, Seoul, Korea

Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Ulsan Uniiversity, Ulsan, Korea

Siloam Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Tae-im Kim, M.D. Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Yonsei Uniiversity #134 Sinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea Tel: 82-2-2228-3570, Fax: 82-2-312-0541, E-mail: tikim@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr

Received 15 April 2008 Accepted 20 December 2007

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare spherical aberration, higher-order aberration, and contrast sensitivity of eyes implanted with aspheric (AcrySof IQ) or spherical (AcrySof Natural) intraocular lenses.

Method

Seventy-five eyes implanted with posterior chamber intraocular lenses were divided into two groups: AcrySof IQ (35 eyes) and AcrySof Natural (40 eyes). Wavefront analysis (spherical, higher-order and total aberration) using iTace, and contrast sensitivity (under photopic and mesopic condition) using Optec 6500 were performed at 1 month and 3 months postoperatively.

Result

One month after surgery, the IQ IOL (intraocular lens) group had lower values of spherical aberration (p<0.001) and higher-order aberration (p=0.048) than the Natural IOL group. The IQ IOL group also showed better contrast sensitivities at 1.5- and 3-cpd spatial frequencies in mesopic conditions. Three months after surgery, the IQ IOL group had less spherical aberration (p<0.001) and higher-order aberration (p=0.027) than the Natural IOL group and showed better contrast sensitivities at the 3-cpd spatial frequency in mesopic conditions.

Conclusions

Aspheric AcrySof IQ IOL induced significantly less higher-order aberration and spherical aberration than AcrySof Natural IOL. The contrast sensitivity was better under mesopic conditions in the AcrySof IQ IOL-implanted group. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 49(8):1256-1262, 2008

Keywords: AcrySof IQ, Aspheric intraocular lens, Contrast sensitivity, Spherical aberration

References

1. Arden GB. The importance of measuring contrast sensitivity in cases of visual disturbance. Br J Ophthalmol. 1978; 62:198–209.

2. Elliott DB. Evaluating visual function in cataract. Optom Vis Sci. 1993; 70:896–902.

3. Rubin GS, Adamsons IA, Stark WJ. Comparison of acuity, contrast sensitivity, and disability glare before and after cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:56–61.

4. Mester U, Dillinger P, Anterist N. Impact of a modified optic design on visual function: clinical comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:652–60.

5. Rawer R, Stork W, Spraul CW, Lingenfelder C. Imaging quality of intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:1618–31.

6. Guirao A, Redondo M, Geraghty E. . Corneal optical aberrations and retinal image quality in patients in whom monofocal intraocular lenses were implanted. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:1143–51.

7. Guirao A, Redondo M, Artal P. Optical aberrations of the human cornea as a function of age. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2000; 17:1697–702.

8. Werner L, Mamalis N. Wavefront corrections of intraocular lenses. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004; 17:233–45.

9. Chalita MR, Krueger RR. Correlation of aberrations with visual acuity and symptoms. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004; 17:135–42.

10. Rocha K, Soriano E, Chalita M. . Wavefront Analysis and Contrast Sensitivity of Aspheric and Spherical Intraocular Lenses. Am J Opthalmol. 2006; 142:750–6.

11. Tzelikis P, Akaishi L, Trindade F, Boteon J. Ocular aberrations and contrast sensitivity after cataract surgery with AcrySof IQ intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1918–24.

12. Caporossi A, Martone G, Casprini F, Rapisarda L. Prospective randomized study of clinical performance of 3 aspheric and 2 spherical intraocular lenses in 250 eyes. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:639–48.

13. Awwad ST, Lehmann JD, McCulley JP, Bowman RW. A comparison of higher order aberrations in eyes implanted with AcrySof IQ SN60WF and AcrySof SN60AT intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007; 17:320–6.

14. Levy Y, Segal O, Avni I, Zadok D. Ocular higher-order aberrations in eyes with supernormal vision. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 139:225–8.

15. Legras R, Chateau N, Charman WN. Assesment of Just-noticeable differences for refractive errors and spherical aberration using visual stimulation. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81:718–28.

16. Pandita D, Raj S, Vasavada V. . Contrast sensitivity and glare disability after implantation of AcrySof IQ Natural aspherical intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:603–10.

17. Oshika T, Kawana K, Hiraoka T. . Ocular higher-order wavefront aberration caused by major tilting of intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 140:744–6.

18. Wang B, Ciuffreda K. Depth-of-Focus of the Human Eye: Theory and Clinical Implications. Surv Ophthalmol. 2006; 51:75–85.

19. Elder MJ, Murphy C, Sanderson GF. Apparent accommodation and depth of field in pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:615–9.

20. Datiles MB, Gancayco T. Low myopia with low astigmatic correction gives cataract surgery patients good depth of focus. Ophthalmology. 1990; 97:922–6.

21. Sawusch MR, Guyton DL. Optimal astigmatism to enhance depth of focus after cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 1991; 98:1025–9.

22. Hardman Lea SJ, Rubinstein MP, Snead MP, Haworth SM. Pseudophakic accommodation? A study of the stability of capsular bag supported, one piece, rigid tripod, or soft flexible implants. Br J Ophthalmol. 1990; 74:22–5.

23. Cheng H, Barnett JK, Vilupuru AS. . A population study on changes in wave aberrations with accommodation. J Vis. 2004; 4:272–80.

24. Rocha K, Soriano E, Chamon W. . Spherical Aberration and Depth of Focus in Eyes Implanted with Aspheric and Spherical Intraocular Lenses. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114:2050–4.

25. Choi J, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kim MK. Comparison of high order aberration in pseudophakic eyes with different acrylic intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:33–41.

26. Paik JS, Kim MJ, Park SH, Joo CK. Contrast sensitivity and glare of different edge designed intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:259–65.

Figure 1.

Contrast sensitivity of the examined eyes at 1 month (mean±standard deviation).

Figure 2.

Contrast sensitivity of the examined eyes at 3 month (mean±standard deviation).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the 2 IOLs in the study

IOL* Characteristics	AcrySof IQ	AcrySof Natural
Type	1 piece	1 piece
Overall length (mm)	13.0	13.0
Optic diameters (mm)	6.0	6.0
Optic material	Hydrophobic acrylic	Hydrophobic acrylic
Angle (degrees)	0	0
Refractive index	1.55	1.55
Optic shape	Biconvex, aspherical posterior surface	Biconvex

^* IOL=Intraocular lens.

Table 2.

Demographics of study groups

IOL groups	AcrySof IQ	AcrySof Natural	p-value
No* of eyes (%)	35	40
OD	17 (48.6)	20 (50.0)
OS	18 (51.4)	20 (50.0)
Gender (M:F)	15:20	15:25
Mean Age (SD)	68.65 (11.1)	65.83 (10.5)	0.149

^* No=number.

Table 3.

Postoperative visual acuity and refraction (Mean± Standard deviation)

IOL groups	AcrySof IQ	AcrySof Natural	p-value
UCVA* - 1 month	0.69±0.25	0.65±0.24	0.531
- 3 months	0.72±0.20	0.60±0.27	0.072
BCVA^†-1 month	0.84±0.24	0.90±0.16	0.275
- 3 months	0.90±0.12	0.88±0.21	0.580
SE^‡ - 1 month	-0.14±0.44	-0.36±0.54	0.079
- 3 months	-0.11±0.38	-0.27±0.61	0.306

^* UCVA=uncorrected visual acuity; visual acuity;

^† BCVA=best corrected

^‡ SE=spherical equivalent.

Table 4.

Aberrations (µm) of the examined eyes at 1 month (Mean±Standard deviation)

IOL groups	RMS* total	HO A^†	Sph A^‡	Coma7 A	Coma8 A	Trefoil6 A	Trefoil9 A
IQ	1.88±0.82	0.96±0.38	0.02±0.18	-0.01±0.30	-0.04±0.28	0.13±0.40	-0.17±0.40
Natural	2.43±1.36	1.34±0.94	0.30±0.35	-0.13±0.52	-0.09±0.33	0.02±0.65	0.10±0.60
p-value	0.071	0.048^§	0.000^§	0.258	0.522	0.414	0.058

^* RMS=root mean square;

^† HO A=higher-order aberration;

^‡ Sph A=spherical aberration;

^§ Statistically significant.

Table 5.

Aberrations (µm) of the examined eyes at 3 months (Mean±Standard deviation)

IOL groups	RMS* total	HO A^†	Sph A^‡	Coma7 A	Coma8 A	Trefoil6 A	Trefoil9 A
IQ	1.76±0.79	0.82±0.36	0.02±0.15	0.04±0.31	0.08±0.31	0.21±0.35	-0.18±0.25
Natural	2.42±1.25	1.16±0.54	0.35±0.32	-0.08±0.48	-0.03±0.40	0.16±0.33	-0.04±0.27
p-value	0.059	0.027^§	0.000^§	0.435	0.309	0.636	0.095

^* RMS=root mean square;

^† HO A=higher-order aberration;

^‡ Sph A=spherical aberration;

^§ Statistically significant.

TOOLS

Similar articles