Pseudophakic accommodation with translation lenses – dual optic vs mono optic

PURPOSE: To investigate the pseudophakic accommodation effect in dual and mono optic translation accommodative intraocular lenses (AIOL) using linear matrix methods in the paraxial space. METHODS: Dual (anterior optic of power +32 D linked to a compensatory posterior optic of negative power) and mono lens power was determined in the non-accommodated state using linear geometric optics based on the Gullstrand model eye. The position of the AIOL was calculated from a regression formula. Pseudophakic accommodation was assessed with three systems: (1) forward shift of the mono optic lens, (2) anterior translation of the anterior optic in the dual optic lens system with an unchanged position of the posterior minus lens and (3) symmetrical anterior and posterior translation of the anterior and posterior lens. The Gullstrand model eye was modified by changing the axial length (and proportionally changing the phakic anterior chamber depth) to investigate the accommodative effect in myopic and hyperopic eyes. RESULTS: The dual optic lens system (2) yields a nearly constant accommodation amplitude of 2.4-2.5 D mm(-1) movement over the total range of axial lengths. The mono optic lens (1) provides a higher accommodative effect only in extremely short eyes (high refractive power of the lens), whereas for normal eyes (1.4-1.5 D mm(-1) movement) and for long (myopic) eyes the accommodative effect is much less than the dual optic lens. The dual optic lens system under condition (3) yields less accommodation amplitude compared with the dual optic system under condition (2) over the total range of axial length but provides higher accommodation amplitude compared with the mono optic lens system (1) with axial lengths greater than 22.3 mm (lens power 25.5 D). In the accommodated state, with lens translation of 1 mm, the absolute value of the lateral magnification increases with the refractive power of the mono optic lens (1) and decreases in both dual optic lens systems (under conditions 2 and 3). CONCLUSIONS: A mathematical strategy is presented for calculation of the accommodative effect of mono-optic and dual optic AIOL. The dual optic lens yielded a nearly constant accommodation amplitude of about 2.4-2.5 D mm(-1) translation, whereas the mono optic lens yielded an accommodative response of <2 D mm(-1) translation in long myopic or normal eyes. Only in extremely short eyes is the accommodative amplitude of the mono-optic lens higher than the dual optic lens.