Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of images of gratings placed in a model eye viewed through an extended depth of focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL) to that of diffractive bifocal IOL or monofocal IOL.
METHODS: Experimental laboratory investigation.
METHODS: Nondiffractive wavefront shaping EDoF (CNAET0, Alcon Laboratories), echelette-designed EDoF (ZXR00V, Johnson & Johnson Vision), diffractive bifocal IOL with low power addition (SV25T, Alcon Laboratories), or monofocal IOL (CNA0T0, Alcon Laboratories) was placed in a fluid-filled model eye. A United States Air Force Resolution Grating Target was glued to the posterior surface of the model eye and viewed through a flat or a wide-angle contact lens. The contrast of the gratings viewed through the EDoF or multifocal IOLs was compared to that through the monofocal IOL. A wavefront analyzer was used to measure the spherical power of the central 4.5 mm optics of the EDoF, multifocal, and monofocal IOLs. The distribution of the dioptric power and the dioptric power map were compared.
RESULTS: The gratings observed through the flat contact lens with CNAET0, ZXR00V, or SV25T were slightly blurred when viewed through the multifocal optics. The blurred area was in the circumferential area of CNAET0, the central area of SV25T, and the peripheral area of ZXR00V. The mean contrast was 0.258 ± 0.020 for CNAET0, 0.227 ± 0.025 for ZXR00V, and 0.221 ± 0.020 for SV25T for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating. The contrast was significantly lower for ZXR00V (P = .004) and SV25T (P = .004) than 0.303 ± 0.015 for CNA0T0 but the differences were not significant for CNAET0. For the wide-angle contact lens, the contrast for CNAET0 was 0.182 ± 0.009, for ZXR00V was 0.162 ± 0.011, and for SV25T was 0.163 ± 0.007 for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating, and none was significantly different from 0.188 ± 0.012 for CNA0T0. The dioptric variations of CNAET0 indicated a ring-shaped area of higher power corresponding to the circumferential blurred zone observed through the flat contact lens.
CONCLUSIONS: The wavefront shaping and echelette-designed EDoF-IOLs reduce the contrast of the grating more than the monofocal IOL when viewed through the flat contact lens. The degree of reduction depended on the design of the extended-focus optics. The difference was less through the wide-angle contact lens.
METHODS: Experimental laboratory investigation.
METHODS: Nondiffractive wavefront shaping EDoF (CNAET0, Alcon Laboratories), echelette-designed EDoF (ZXR00V, Johnson & Johnson Vision), diffractive bifocal IOL with low power addition (SV25T, Alcon Laboratories), or monofocal IOL (CNA0T0, Alcon Laboratories) was placed in a fluid-filled model eye. A United States Air Force Resolution Grating Target was glued to the posterior surface of the model eye and viewed through a flat or a wide-angle contact lens. The contrast of the gratings viewed through the EDoF or multifocal IOLs was compared to that through the monofocal IOL. A wavefront analyzer was used to measure the spherical power of the central 4.5 mm optics of the EDoF, multifocal, and monofocal IOLs. The distribution of the dioptric power and the dioptric power map were compared.
RESULTS: The gratings observed through the flat contact lens with CNAET0, ZXR00V, or SV25T were slightly blurred when viewed through the multifocal optics. The blurred area was in the circumferential area of CNAET0, the central area of SV25T, and the peripheral area of ZXR00V. The mean contrast was 0.258 ± 0.020 for CNAET0, 0.227 ± 0.025 for ZXR00V, and 0.221 ± 0.020 for SV25T for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating. The contrast was significantly lower for ZXR00V (P = .004) and SV25T (P = .004) than 0.303 ± 0.015 for CNA0T0 but the differences were not significant for CNAET0. For the wide-angle contact lens, the contrast for CNAET0 was 0.182 ± 0.009, for ZXR00V was 0.162 ± 0.011, and for SV25T was 0.163 ± 0.007 for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating, and none was significantly different from 0.188 ± 0.012 for CNA0T0. The dioptric variations of CNAET0 indicated a ring-shaped area of higher power corresponding to the circumferential blurred zone observed through the flat contact lens.
CONCLUSIONS: The wavefront shaping and echelette-designed EDoF-IOLs reduce the contrast of the grating more than the monofocal IOL when viewed through the flat contact lens. The degree of reduction depended on the design of the extended-focus optics. The difference was less through the wide-angle contact lens.
摘要：
目的：比较通过扩展焦深（EDoF）人工晶状体（IOL）观察的模型眼光栅与衍射双焦点IOL或单焦点IOL的图像质量。
方法：实验实验室调查。
方法：非衍射波前整形EDoF（CNAET0，Alcon实验室），梯队设计的EDoF(ZXR00V,强生愿景)，低功率附加衍射双焦IOL(SV25T，爱尔康实验室)，或单焦点IOL（CNA0T0，Alcon实验室）放置在充满液体的模型眼中。将USAF分辨率光栅目标粘合到模型眼睛的后表面，并通过平坦或广角隐形眼镜进行观察。通过EDoF或多焦点IOL观察的光栅对比度与通过单焦点IOL观察的光栅对比度进行比较。使用波前分析仪测量EDoF的中心4.5mm光学器件的球面功率，多焦点,和单焦点IOL。比较了屈光度的分布和屈光度图。
结果：通过带有CNAET0，ZXR00V的平面隐形眼镜观察到的光栅，或SV25T在通过多焦点光学观察时略微模糊。模糊区域位于CNAET0的圆周区域，SV25T的中心区域，和ZXR00V的外围区域。CNAET0的平均对比度为0.258±0.020，ZXR00V的平均对比度为0.227±0.025，对于16.0cyc/mm光栅，SV25T为0.221±0.020。ZXR00V(P=0.004)和SV25T(P=0.004)的对比度显著低于CNA0T0的0.303±0.015,但差异不显著。对于广角隐形眼镜，CNAET0的对比度为0.182±0.009，ZXR00V的对比度为0.162±0.011，SV25T的对比度为0.163±0.007，光栅为16.0cyc/mm，与CNA0T0的0.188±0.012无显著差异。CNAET0的屈光变化表明较高屈光力的环形区域对应于通过平面接触镜片观察到的圆周模糊区。
结论：当通过平面接触镜观察时，波前整形和小阶梯设计的EDoF-IOL比单焦点IOL更多地降低了光栅的对比度。减少的程度取决于扩展焦距光学器件的设计。通过广角隐形眼镜的差异较小。
方法：实验实验室调查。
方法：非衍射波前整形EDoF（CNAET0，Alcon实验室），梯队设计的EDoF(ZXR00V,强生愿景)，低功率附加衍射双焦IOL(SV25T，爱尔康实验室)，或单焦点IOL（CNA0T0，Alcon实验室）放置在充满液体的模型眼中。将USAF分辨率光栅目标粘合到模型眼睛的后表面，并通过平坦或广角隐形眼镜进行观察。通过EDoF或多焦点IOL观察的光栅对比度与通过单焦点IOL观察的光栅对比度进行比较。使用波前分析仪测量EDoF的中心4.5mm光学器件的球面功率，多焦点,和单焦点IOL。比较了屈光度的分布和屈光度图。
结果：通过带有CNAET0，ZXR00V的平面隐形眼镜观察到的光栅，或SV25T在通过多焦点光学观察时略微模糊。模糊区域位于CNAET0的圆周区域，SV25T的中心区域，和ZXR00V的外围区域。CNAET0的平均对比度为0.258±0.020，ZXR00V的平均对比度为0.227±0.025，对于16.0cyc/mm光栅，SV25T为0.221±0.020。ZXR00V(P=0.004)和SV25T(P=0.004)的对比度显著低于CNA0T0的0.303±0.015,但差异不显著。对于广角隐形眼镜，CNAET0的对比度为0.182±0.009，ZXR00V的对比度为0.162±0.011，SV25T的对比度为0.163±0.007，光栅为16.0cyc/mm，与CNA0T0的0.188±0.012无显著差异。CNAET0的屈光变化表明较高屈光力的环形区域对应于通过平面接触镜片观察到的圆周模糊区。
结论：当通过平面接触镜观察时，波前整形和小阶梯设计的EDoF-IOL比单焦点IOL更多地降低了光栅的对比度。减少的程度取决于扩展焦距光学器件的设计。通过广角隐形眼镜的差异较小。
