Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In vitro optical quality comparison between the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal and the TECNIS Symfony

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

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the optical quality between two intraocular lenses (IOLs): the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal (SIFI Medtech, Catania, Italy), and the TECNIS Symfony (Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA), which both provide a continuous range of vision from far to near positions.

Methods

The in vitro optical quality of each lens was assessed with an instrument conceived for measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF). The optical quality of each lens was described in terms of MTF, through-focus MTF, defocus tolerance, pupil dependence, and Strehl ratio MTF. These metrics were assessed for the best lens far focus, and at four vergences (from −1.5 to −3.0 D in 0.5-D steps), at 3.0 and 4.5 mm apertures.

Results

The through-focus curves of each lens showed two main areas: one corresponding to far-distance vision, and another to intermediate- and near-distance vision. Both lenses showed similar MTF curves and Strehl ratio values at both apertures. The optical quality of both lenses slightly decreased with the aperture for all vergences. Nevertheless, the quality of the progressive multifocal lens increased with the aperture at far-distance vision. This lens also showed the largest defocus tolerance at near-distance vision for both apertures.

Conclusions

The results obtained in the present study suggest that both designs might enlarge the depth of focus. Whereas, the Mini WELL Ready showed better optical quality than the TECNIS Symfony at far vision with 4.5 mm aperture, and larger defocus tolerance than the diffractive lens at near-distance vision.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Atkinson MJ, Tally S, Heichel CW, Kozak I, Leich J, Levack A (2013) A qualitative investigation of visual tasks with which to assess distance-specific visual function. Qual Life Res 22:437–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Luo BP, Brown GC, Luo SC, Brown MM (2008) The quality of life associated with presbyopia. Am J Ophthalmol 145(4):618–622. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.12.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maxwell WA, Cionni RJ, Lehmann RP, Modi SS (2009) Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power randomized multicenter clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(12):2054–2061. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.06.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Munoz G, Albarran-Diego C, Ferrer-Blasco T, Sakla HF, Garcia-Lazaro S (2011) Visual function after bilateral implantation of a new zonal refractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(11):2043–2052. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Madrid-Costa D, Ruiz-Alcocer J, Ferrer-Blasco T, Garcia-Lazaro S, Montes-Mico R (2013) Optical quality differences between three multifocal intraocular lenses: bifocal low add, bifocal moderate add, and trifocal. J Refract Surg 29(11):749–754. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20131021-04

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gatinel D, Houbrechts Y (2013) Comparison of bifocal and trifocal diffractive and refractive intraocular lenses using an optical bench. J Cataract Refract Surg 39(7):1093–1099. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carson D, Hill W, Hong X, Karakelle M (2014) Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 8:2105–2113

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Alfonso JF, Fernandez-Vega L, Amhaz H, Montes-Mico R, Valcarcel B, Ferrer-Blasco T (2009) Visual function after implantation of an aspheric bifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(5):885–892. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Alfonso JF, Fernandez-Vega L, Puchades C, Montes-Mico R (2010) Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(5):733–739. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.11.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Netto MV, Ghanen RC, Monteiro ML, Bechara SJ, Espana EM, Mello GR, Kara N Jr (2012) Modulation transfer function and optical quality after bilateral implantation of a +3.00 D versus a +4.00 D multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(2):215–220. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.08.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pedrotti E, Mastropasqua R, Passilongo M, Parisi G, Marchesoni I, Marchini G (2014) Comparison of two multifocal intraocular lens designs that differ only in near add. J Refract Surg 30:754–760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. International Organization for Standardization (2014) Part 2: optical propierties and test methods. In: ISO 11979: Ophthalmic impants – Intraocular lenses – Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1–30

  13. Norrby N (1995) Standardized methods for assessing the imaging quality of intraocular lenses. Appl Opt 34:7327–7333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thibos L, Hong X, Bradley A, Applegate RA (2004) Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations. J Vis 4:329–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Artigas JM, Menezo JL, Peris C, Felipe A, Diaz-Llopis M (2007) Image quality with multifocal intraocular lenses and the effect of pupil size: comparison of refractive and hybrid refractive-diffractive designs. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(12):2111–2117. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.07.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. International Organization for Standardization (2006) Part 9: multifocal intraocular lenses. In: ISO 11979: Ophthalmic impants – Intraocular lenses – Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1–20

  17. Felipe A, Pastor F, Artigas J, Diez-Ajenjo A, Gené A, Menezo J (2010) Correlation between optics quality of multifocal intraocular lenses and visual acuity. Tolerance to modulation transfer function decay. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:557–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Koch DD, Samuelson SW, Haft EA, Merin LM (1991) Pupillary size and responsiveness. Implications for selection of a Bifocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 98:1030–1035

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Venter J, Pelouskova M, Collins B, Schallhorn S, Hannan S (2013) Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction in 9366 eyes using a refractive segmented multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1477–1484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Venter J, Pelouskova M, Bull C, Schallhorn S, Hannan S (2015) Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction with a rotational asymmetric refractive intraocular lens for emmetropic presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:585–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosa A, Silva M, Lobo C, Mira J, Farinha C, voa Po J, Castelo-Branco M, Murta J (2013) Comparison of visual function after bilateral implantation of inferior sector-shaped near-addition and diffractive–refractive multifocal IOLs. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1653–1659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rabsilber TM, Rudalevicius P, Jasinskas V, Holzer M, Auffarth GU (2013) Influence of +3.00 D and +4.00 D near addition on functional outcomes of a refractive multifocal intraocular lens model. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:350–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Venter J, Barclay D, Pelouskova M, Bull C (2014) Initial Experience With a New Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal Intraocular Lens. J Refract Surg 30:770–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Montés-Micó R, López-Gil N, Pérez-Vives C, Bonaque S, Ferrer-Blasco T (2012) In vitro optical performance of nonrotational symmetric and refractive-diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses: impact of tilt and decentration. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(9):1657–1663. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.03.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Montés-Micó R, Ferrer-Blasco T, Cerviño A (2009) Analysis of the possible benefits of aspheric intraocular lenses: Review of the literature. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:172–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pieh S, Fiala W, Malz A, Stork W (2009) In vitro Strehl ratios with spherical, aberration-free, average, and customized spherical aberration-correcting intraocular lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:1264–1270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eppig T, Scholz K, Loffler A, Meßner A, Langenbucher A (2009) Effect of decentration and tilt on the image quality of aspheric intraocular lens designs in a model eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1091–1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a “Grups d’Investigació Emergents” grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (GV/2015/046) to Dr. Ferrer-Blasco, and by an “Atracció de talent” research scholarship (Universidad de Valencia) awarded to Alberto Domínguez-Vicent (UV-INV-PREDOC13-110412) and Antonio J. Del Águila-Carrasco (UV-INV-PREDOC14-179135).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. From the Optometry Research Group (GIO), Department of Optics and Optometry and Vision Science, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Alberto Domínguez-Vicent, Jose Juan Esteve-Taboada, Antonio J. Del Águila-Carrasco, Teresa Ferrer-Blasco & Robert Montés-Micó

  2. Department of Optics, University of Valencia, C/ Dr Moliner, 50, 46100, Burjassot, Spain

    Alberto Domínguez-Vicent

Authors
  1. Alberto Domínguez-Vicent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose Juan Esteve-Taboada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio J. Del Águila-Carrasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teresa Ferrer-Blasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Montés-Micó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Domínguez-Vicent.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have only non-financial interests (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Domínguez-Vicent, A., Esteve-Taboada, J.J., Del Águila-Carrasco, A.J. et al. In vitro optical quality comparison between the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal and the TECNIS Symfony. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254, 1387–1397 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3240-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3240-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation