COMPARISON OF THE OPTICAL AND VISUAL QUALITY OF POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE) AND SILICONE INTRAOCULAR LENSES

被引：23

作者：

KNORZ, MC

LANG, A

HSIA, TC

POEPEL, B

SEIBERTH, V

LIESENHOFF, H

机构：

[1] Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Klinikum Mannheim, Mannheim

[2] Storz Instrument Company, St. Louis, Missouri

[3] Allergan Inc., Irvine, California

来源：

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY | 1993年 / 19卷 / 06期

关键词：

CONTRAST ACUITY; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; INTRAOCULAR LENS; LASER INTERFEROMETRY; MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION; POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE); SILICONE;

D O I：

10.1016/S0886-3350(13)80347-1

中图分类号：

R77 [眼科学];

学科分类号：

100212 ;

摘要：

We evaluated experimentally the optical quality of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (Storz 68UV, AMO PC58) and silicone (AMO SI19, Adatomed 90D) intraocular lenses (IOLs) and compared the results with our clinical data. We measured surface and image quality using the Zygo laser interferometer and modulation transfer function (MTF) using the Ealing EROSMTE analyzer. Contrast acuity was tested clinically with glare and without glare (Regan charts); AMO PC58, n=18; AMO SI19, n=7; Adatomed 90D, n=18). Modulation transfer function and image quality were slightly better with PMMA IOLs but the reduction of MTF with silicone lenses was within the 1/8 diopter defocus range. Surface quality of silicone IOLs was superior to that of PMMA IOLs. Contrast acuity measured clinically was also better with PMMA IOLs at low contrast and with glare but differences were not significant. Our results suggest that optical and visual quality of silicone IOLs is slightly lower than with PMMA IOLs. Experimental and clinical results correlated closely. However, the small differences observed are unlikely to be significant clinically.

引用

页码：766 / 771

页数：6

共 8 条

[1]

Brint SF, Ostrick DM, Bryan JE, Keratometric cylinder and visual performance following phacoemulsification and implantation with silicone small-incision or poly(methyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses, J Cataract Refract Surg, 17, pp. 32-36, (1991)

[2]

Allarakhia L, Knoll RL, Lindstrom RL, Soft intraocular lenses, Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 13, pp. 607-620, (1987)

[3]

Jindra LF, Zemon V, Contrast sensitivity testing: a more complete assessment of vision, J Cataract Refract Surg, 15, pp. 141-148, (1989)

[4]

Storch RL, Bodis-Wollner I, Overview of contrast sensitivity and neuro-ophthalmic disease, Glare and Contrast Sensitivity for Clinicians, pp. 85-112, (1990)

[5]

Koch DD, Samuelson SW, Haft EA, Merin LM, Pupillary responsiveness and its implications for selection of a bifocal intraocular lens, Current Concepts of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses, pp. 147-152, (1991)

[6]

Owsley C, Sloane ME, Skalka HW, Jackson CA, A comparison of the Regan low-contrast letter charts and contrast sensitivity testing in older patients, Clin Vis Sci, 5, pp. 325-334, (1990)

[7]

Perrigin J, Perrigin D, Grosvenor T, A comparison of clinical refractive data obtained by three examiners, Am J Optom Physiol Optics, 59, pp. 515-519, (1982)

[8]

Legge GE, Mullen KT, Woo GC, Campbell FW, Tolerance to visual defocus, J Opt Soc Am [A], 4, pp. 851-863, (1987)

← 1 →