Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2022; 239(08): 982-990
DOI: 10.1055/a-1328-2550
Experimentelle Studie

Comparative Surface Imaging Study of Multifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Hyeck Soo Son  ‡
1   David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, Deutschland
,
Jung Min Lee‡
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine“, Jongno-gu, Republic of Korea
,
Ramin Khoramnia 
1   David J Apple International Laboratory for Ocular Pathology, Univ.-Augenklinik Heidelberg, Deutschland
,
Chul Young Choi
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine“, Jongno-gu, Republic of Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: Vergleich des Oberflächenprofils von multifokalen diffraktiven IntraokularlinsenKlin Monbl Augenheilkd eFirst
DOI: 10.1055/a-1696-6077

Abstract

Purpose To analyse and compare the surface topography and roughness of three different types of diffractive multifocal IOLs.

Methods Using scanning electron microscope (SEM, Inspect F, 5.0 KV, maximum magnification up to 20,000) and atomic force microscope (AFM, Park Systems, XE-100, non-contact, area profile comparison, 10 × 10 µm, 40 × 40 µm), the surface quality of the following diffractive IOLs was studied: the AcrySof IQ PanOptix (Alcon, USA), the AT LARA 829MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany), and Tecnis Symfony (Johnson&Johnson Vision, USA). The measurements were made over three representative areas (central non-diffractive optic, central diffractive optic, and diffractive step) of each IOL. Roughness profile in terms of mean arithmetic roughness (Ra) and root-mean-squared roughness (Rq) values were obtained and compared statistically.

Results In SEM examination, all IOLs showed a smooth optical surface without any irregularities at low magnification. At higher magnification, Tecnis Symfony showed unique highly regular, concentric, and lineate structures in the diffractive optic area which could not be seen in the other studied diffractive IOLs. The differences in the measured Ra and Rq values of the Tecnis Symfony were statistically significant compared to the other models (p < 0.05).

Conclusion Various different topographical traits were observed in three diffractive multifocal IOLs. The Ra values of all studied IOLs were within an acceptable range. Tecnis Symfony showed statistically significant higher surface Ra values at both central diffractive optic and diffractive step areas. Furthermore, compared to its counterparts, Tecnis Symfony demonstrated highly ordered, concentric pattern in its diffractive surfaces.

Key words

surface topography - roughness - scanning electron microscope - atomic force microscope


Publication History

Received: 15 May 2020

Accepted: 26 October 2020

Article published online:
19 February 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Dick HB, Frohn A, Augustin AJ. et al. Physicochemical surface properties of various intraocular lenses. Ophthalmic Res 2001; 33: 303-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Garcia-Bella J, Ventura-Abreu N, Morales-Fernandez L. et al. Visual outcomes after progressive apodized diffractive intraocular lens implantation. Eur J Ophthalmol 2018; 28: 282-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kohnen T, Baumeister M, Magdowski G. Scanning electron microscopic characteristics of phakic intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 934-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Auffarth GU. Surface characteristics of intraocular lens implants: An evaluation using scanning electron microscopy and quantitative three-dimensional noncontacting profilometry (TOPO). J Long Term Eff Med Implants 1993; 3: 321-332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kohnen T, Magdowski G, Koch DD. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of foldable acrylic and hydrogel intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22 (Suppl. 02) S1342-S1350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Escobar-Gomez M, Apple DJ, Vargas LG. et al. Scanning electron microscopic and histologic evaluation of the AcrySof SA30AL acrylic intraocular lens. Manufacturing quality and morphology in the capsular bag. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 164-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fang TH, Chang WJ. Effects of AFM-based nanomachining process on aluminum surface. J Phys Chem Solids 2003; 64: 913-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Garcia-Ayuso G, Vázquez L, Martínez-Duart JM. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) morphological surface characterization of transparent gas barrier coatings on plastic films. Surf Coat Technol 1996; 80: 203-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Strauss RW, Hochleitner ME, Gsenger W. et al. Changes in intraocular lens surface roughness during cataract surgery assessed by atomic force microscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 146-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lombardo M, De Santo MP, Lombardo G. et al. Analysis of intraocular lens surface properties with atomic force microscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 1378-1384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Omar O, Mamalis N, Veiga J. et al. Scanning electron microscopic characteristics of small-incision intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1124-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dogru M, Tetsumoto K, Tagami Y. et al. Optical and atomic force microscopy of an explanted AcrySof intraocular lens with glistenings. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 571-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rao CB, Raj B. Study of engineering surfaces using laser-scattering techniques. Sādhanā 2003; 28: 739-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bennett HE, Porleus JO. Relation between surface roughness and specular reflectance at normal incidence. J Opt Soc Am 1961; 51: 123-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar