Modeling of lateral magnification changes due to changes in corneal shape or refraction

Meridional ocular magnification after cataract surgery with toric and non-toric intraocular lenses

Background

Overall ocular magnification (OOM) and meridional ocular magnification (MOM) with consequent image distortions have been widely ignored in modern cataract surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate OOM and MOM in a general situation with an astigmatic refracting surface.

Methods

From a large dataset containing biometric measurements (IOLMaster 700) of both eyes of 9734 patients prior to cataract surgery, the equivalent (P_IOLeq) and cylindric power (P_IOLcyl) were derived for the HofferQ, Haigis, and Castrop formulae for emmetropia. Based on the pseudophakic eye model, OOM and MOM were extracted using 4 × 4 matrix algebra for the corrected eye (with P_IOLeq/P_IOLcyl (scenario 1) or with P_IOLeq and spectacle correction of the residual refractive cylinder (scenario 2) or with P_IOLeq remaining the residual uncorrected refractive cylinder (blurry image) (scenario 3)). In each case, the relative image distortion of MOM/OOM was calculated in %.

Results

On average, P_IOLeq/P_IOLcyl was 20.73 ± 4.50 dpt/1.39 ± 1.09 dpt for HofferQ, 20.75 ± 4.23 dpt/1.29 ± 1.01 dpt for Haigis, and 20.63 ± 4.31 dpt/1.26 ± 0.98 dpt for Castrop formulae. Cylindric refraction for scenario 2 was 0.91 ± 0.70 dpt, 0.89 ± 0.69 dpt, and 0.89 ± 0.69 dpt, respectively. OOM/MOM (× 1000) was 16.56 ± 1.20/0.08 ± 0.07, 16.56 ± 1.20/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.56 ± 1.20/0.08 ± 0.07 mm/mrad with HofferQ; 16.64 ± 1.16/0.07 ± 0.06, 16.64 ± 1.16/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.64 ± 1.16/0.07 ± 0.06 mm/mrad with Haigis; and 16.72 ± 1.18/0.07 ± 0.05, 16.72 ± 1.18/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.72 ± 1.18/0.07 ± 0.05 mm/mrad with Castrop formulae. Mean/95% quantile relative image distortion was 0.49/1.23%, 0.41/1.05%, and 0.40/0.98% for scenarios 1 and 3 and 1.09/2.71%, 1.07/2.66%, and 1.06/2.64% for scenario 2 with HofferQ, Haigis, and Castrop formulae.

Conclusion

Matrix representation of the pseudophakic eye allows for a simple and straightforward prediction of OOM and MOM of the pseudophakic eye after cataract surgery. OOM and MOM could be used for estimating monocular image distortions, or differences in overall or meridional magnifications between eyes.

Prediction of ocular magnification and aniseikonia after cataract surgery

BACKGROUND

Ocular magnification and aniseikonia after cataract surgery has been widely ignored in modern cataract surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyse ocular magnification and inter-individual differences in a normal cataract population with a focus on monovision.

METHODS

From a large dataset containing biometric measurements (IOLMaster 700) of both eyes of 9734 patients prior to cataract surgery, eyes were indexed randomly as primary (P) and secondary (S). Intraocular lens power (IOLP) was derived for the HofferQ, Haigis and Castrop formulae for emmetropia for P and emmetropia or myopia (-0.5 to -2 dpt) for S to simulate monovision. Based on the pseudophakic eye model in addition to these formulae, ocular magnification was extracted using matrix algebra (refraction and translation matrices and a system matrix describing the optical property of the entire spectacle corrected or uncorrected eye).

RESULTS

With emmetropia for P and S the IOLP differences (S-P) showed a standard deviation of 0.162/0.156/0.157 dpt and ocular magnification differences yielded a standard deviation of 0.0414/0.0405/0.0408 mm/mrad for the HofferQ/Haigis/Castrop setting. Simulating monovision, the myopic eye (S) showed a systematically smaller mean absolute spectacle corrected ocular magnification than the emmetropic eye (-0.0351/-0.0340/-0.0336, respectively, relative magnification around 2%). If myopia in the S eye remains uncorrected, the reduction of ocular magnification is much smaller (around 0.2-0.3%).

CONCLUSION

Vergence formulae for IOLP calculation sometimes implicitly define a pseudophakic eye model which can be directly used to predict ocular magnification after cataract surgery. Despite a strong similarity of both eyes, ocular magnification does not fully match between eyes and the prediction of ocular magnification and aniseikonia might be relevant to avoid eikonic problems in the pseudophakic eye.

Linear optics of the eye and optical systems: a review of methods and applications

The purpose of this paper is to review the basic principles of linear optics. A paraxial optical system is represented by a symplectic matrix called the transference, with entries that represent the fundamental properties of a paraxial optical system. Such an optical system may have elements that are astigmatic and decentred or tilted. Nearly all the familiar optical properties of an optical system can be derived from the transference. The transference is readily obtainable, as shown, for Gaussian and astigmatic optical systems, including systems with elements that are decentred or tilted. Four special systems are described and used to obtain the commonly used optical properties including power, refractive compensation, vertex powers, neutralising powers, the generalised Prentice equation and change in vergence across an optical system. The use of linear optics in quantitative analysis and the consequences of symplecticity are discussed. A systematic review produced 84 relevant papers for inclusion in this review on optical properties of linear systems. Topics reviewed include various magnifications (transverse, angular, spectacle, instrument, aniseikonia, retinal blur), cardinal points and axes of the eye, chromatic aberrations, positioning and design of intraocular lenses, flipped, reversed and catadioptric systems and gradient indices. The optical properties are discussed briefly, with emphasis placed on results and their implications. Many of these optical properties have applications for vision science and eye surgery and some examples of using linear optics for quantitative analyses are mentioned.

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.