Abstract
Purpose :
Novel zonal, dual-focus contact lenses (CL) for myopia control and multifocal (MF) CLs designed for presbyopia employ spatially separated zones containing different optical properties. While wavefront aberrometry can be used to evaluate CL performance on eye, a novel methodology was evaluated of using pupil-plane superposition of ocular wavefronts with measured and modeled ex-vivo wavefronts to predict retinal image quality of eyes wearing these optics.
Methods :
Ocular wavefronts were measured in-vivo using a pyramidal wavefront sensor (Osiris, CSO, Italy) for “eye only” and “eye wearing lens” scenarios. CL wavefronts were measured with a single-pass Shack-Hartmann aberrometer (ClearWave, Lumetrics, Rochester, NY), and modeled using geometrical ray tracing. Numerical superpositions of “eye + measured lens” and “eye + modeled lens” wavefronts were compared to “eye wearing lens” wavefronts for center-distance multifocal (CDMF), center-near multifocal (CNMF), and center-distance dual-focus (CDDF) designs. Point-spread functions (PSF) and corresponding retinal image simulations were computed from the wavefronts.
Results :
Peak image quality (VSX) scores for CDMF, CNMF, and CDDF (6.0 mm pupils) were, respectively, 0.15, 0.15; and 0.10 for “eye wearing lens”, 0.12, 0.10; 0.15, for “eye + measured lens”, and 0.13, 0.08; 0.14, for “eye + modeled lens”. Corresponding peak AreaMTF scores were 0.20; 0.16, and 0.15; 0.16; 0.17, 0.15; and 0.14; 0.28, 0.14. The morphology (size, shape, orientation) of the PSFs matched well (Fig. 1).
Conclusions :
The three approaches to assess image quality in eyes fit with the different MF and DF lenses reveal a common pattern with the Strehl ratio-based VSX metric with values generally between 10% and 15% of the diffraction limit, and slightly higher values for the AreaMTF metric. The three approaches generally produced similar results, being slightly higher for "eye wearing lens" with the two MF designs, and slightly lower with the DF design. The slight variations in PSF shape can be attributed to differences in lens centration between “eye wearing lens” and “eye + lens” scenarios and data collection interval between “eye alone” and “eye wearing lens” conditions.
This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.