Profile of off-axis higher order aberrations and its variation with time among various refractive error groups.

Peripheral higher order aberrations (HOA) of 646 children at 30° temporal, nasal and inferior visual field were measured under cycloplegia (5 mm pupil diameter) using a commercially available Shack-Hartmann aberrometer in the Sydney Myopia Study [age, 12.7 ±â€¯0.4 years (mean ±â€¯standard deviation)] and five years later in the Sydney Adolescent Vascular and Eye Study. At baseline, 176 eyes were emmetropic, 95 were myopic and 375 were hyperopic. Coma, 3rd order and RMS of coma increased with eccentricity for all eyes and no difference was observed for 4th order and RMS of C(4,0) among refractive error groups. More positive C(4,0) was observed for hyperopic eyes at periphery. At follow up, 26% had 'myopic change' and 70% had 'no change' in refractive error. At follow-up, horizontal coma became more negative at nasal field and more positive at temporal field for all eyes. More positive C(4,0) for hyperopic eyes at baseline may indicate variation in optical characteristics of peripheral cornea and crystalline lens. An increase in horizontal coma with time, irrespective of refractive error change, may be attributed to variation in the shape factor of peripheral cornea and crystalline lens and/or misalignment of optical surfaces/components relative to the visual axis (angle kappa) as the eye grows in axial length.

Total ocular, anterior corneal and lenticular higher order aberrations in hyperopic, myopic and emmetropic eyes.

Total ocular higher order aberrations and corneal topography of myopic, emmetropic and hyperopic eyes of 675 adolescents (16.9 ± 0.7 years) were measured after cycloplegia using COAS aberrometer and Medmont videokeratoscope. Corneal higher order aberrations were computed from the corneal topography maps and lenticular (internal) higher order aberrations derived by subtraction of corneal aberrations from total ocular aberrations. Aberrations were measured for a pupil diameter of 5mm. Multivariate analysis of variance followed by multiple regression analysis found significant difference in the fourth order aberrations (SA RMS, primary spherical aberration coefficient) between the refractive error groups. Hyperopic eyes (+0.083 ± 0.05 µm) had more positive total ocular primary spherical aberration compared to emmetropic (+0.036 ± 0.04 µm) and myopic eyes (low myopia=+0.038 ± 0.05 µm, moderate myopia=+0.026 ± 0.06 µm) (p<0.05). No difference was observed for the anterior corneal spherical aberration. Significantly less negative lenticular spherical aberration was observed for the hyperopic eyes (-0.038 ± 0.05 µm) than myopic (low myopia=-0.088 ± 0.04 µm, moderate myopia=-0.095 ± 0.05 µm) and emmetropic eyes (-0.081 ± 0.04 µm) (p<0.05). These findings suggest the existence of differences in the characteristics of the crystalline lens (asphericity, curvature and gradient refractive index) of hyperopic eyes versus other eyes.

Paraxial analysis of the depth of field of a pseudophakic eye with accommodating intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To investigate the depth of field of pseudophakic eye implanted with translating optics accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOLs). METHODS: Theoretical analyses using paraxial optics equations were used. The crystalline lens in the Navarro eye model was replaced with an AIOL modeled as a thin-lens system with either a single lens element (1E-AIOL) or two element (2E-AIOL). To quantify the depth of field, a reference limit for retinal blur circle diameter was adopted from typical values of depth of field of the normal eye. Effect of various factors including AIOL type, lens element power, implant position, and pseudophakic accommodation on depth of field were analyzed. RESULTS: Depth of field increased with more posterior positioning of the AIOL and decreased with pseudophakic accommodation by translation of optics. However, the changes did not exceed 0.02 D over the range of factors tested. Effective depth of field, defined as the magnification adjusted depth of field, is relatively independent of the implant position and power combination of AIOL. Effects of varying design factors on the depth of field of AIOL are too small to be clinically observable. CONCLUSIONS: Although depth of field extends the range of near vision with AIOL, varying design and surgical factors such as depth of implantation and optical power of lens element(s) within clinically practical limits modifies depth of field by an insignificant amount. In the practical sense, attempting to enhance the depth of field of AIOL by varying design factors such as the position of implantation would be unrewarding.

Magnifications of single and dual element accommodative intraocular lenses: paraxial optics analysis.

PURPOSE: Using an analytical approach of paraxial optics, we evaluated the magnification of a model eye implanted with single-element (1E) and dual-element (2E) translating-optics accommodative intraocular lenses (AIOL) with an objective of understanding key control parameters relevant to their design. Potential clinical implications of the results arising from pseudophakic accommodation were also considered. METHODS: Lateral and angular magnifications in a pseudophakic model eye were analyzed using the matrix method of paraxial optics. The effects of key control parameters such as direction (forward or backward) and distance (0 to 2 mm) of translation, power combinations of the 2E-AIOL elements (front element power range +20.0 D to +40.0 D), and amplitudes of accommodation (0 to 4 D) were tested. Relative magnification, defined as the ratio of the retinal image size of the accommodated eye to that of unaccommodated phakic (rLM(1)) or pseudophakic (rLM(2)) model eyes, was computed to determine how retinal image size changes with pseudophakic accommodation. RESULTS: Both lateral and angular magnifications increased with increased power of the front element in 2E-AIOL and amplitude of accommodation. For a 2E-AIOL with front element power of +35 D, rLM(1) and rLM(2) increased by 17.0% and 16.3%, respectively, per millimetre of forward translation of the element, compared to the magnification at distance focus (unaccommodated). These changes correspond to a change of 9.4% and 6.5% per dioptre of accommodation, respectively. Angular magnification also increased with pseudophakic accommodation. 1E-AIOLs produced consistently less magnification than 2E-AIOLs. Relative retinal image size decreased at a rate of 0.25% with each dioptre of accommodation in the phakic model eye. The position of the image space nodal point shifted away from the retina (towards the cornea) with both phakic and pseudophakic accommodation. CONCLUSION: Power of the mobile element, and amount and direction of the translation (or the achieved accommodative amplitude) are important parameters in determining the magnifications of the AIOLs. The results highlight the need for caution in the prescribing of AIOL. Aniso-accommodation or inter-ocular differences in AIOL designs (or relative to the natural lens of the contralateral eye) may introduce dynamic aniseikonia and consequent impaired binocular vision. Nevertheless, some designs, offering greater increases in magnification on accommodation, may provide enhanced near vision depending on patient needs.

Evaluation of the performance of accommodating IOLs using a paraxial optics analysis.

PURPOSE: We employed an analytical approach to evaluate the key parameters for the potential design optimisation of accommodating intra-ocular lenses (AIOL) and to use these parameters to predict their accommodative performance. METHODS: Paraxial thin-lens equations to predict the accommodative performances of single-element (1E) and two-element (2E) AIOLs were developed. 2E-AIOLs with either mobile front or back lens elements were analysed as well as 1E-AIOL for their accommodative performance. A paraxial model including key ocular components (corneal surfaces, pupil and retina) as well as AIOL was used to evaluate the key control parameters and optimal design configurations. A range of variants of the model, representing varying powers of front and back optical elements and with either front or back optical element mobile was tested. RESULTS: Optimal accommodative performance of 2E-AIOL is governed by the power combinations of its optical elements; design variants with higher positive front element power produced greater accommodative efficacy, while mobility of the front element contributed more to the accommodative performance than the back element. The performance of 1E-AIOL is primarily governed by the power of the AIOL; the higher the AIOL power, the better the accommodative performance. CONCLUSIONS: From an accommodative performance standpoint, the optimal design of 2E-AIOL should comprise a high plus power front element. Considering the maximum potential amounts of element translation available clinically, 2E-AIOLs are predicted to offer higher accommodative performance compared to 1E-AIOL.