Evaluation of the mechanical stability of intraocular lenses using digital image correlation

Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 9437 (2023) Cite this article

Metrics details

This study aimed to evaluate the mechanical stability of seven different intraocular lens (IOL) haptic designs by using digital image correlation to measure their mechanical biomarkers (axial displacement, tilt, and rotation) under quasi-static compression. The IOLs were compressed between two clamps from 11.00 up to 9.50 mm whilst a 3D deformation dataset was acquired every 0.04 mm. Results revealed that flexible and mixed IOL designs exhibited better mechanical response for smaller compression diameters compared to stiff designs. Conversely, stiff designs performed better for larger compression diameters. These findings may aid in the selection and development of more mechanically stable IOL designs.

The position of the intraocular lens (IOL) inside the capsular bag is critical for the visual performance of the patient after cataract surgery1,2. Intraocular lens axial displacement can lead to residual refractive error3,4; tilt can require explanation or repositioning5,6; while rotation and decentration are crucial factors for toric and asymmetrical multifocal IOLs7,8,9, see Fig. 1.

Outline of the effect of the mechanical stability of the IOL in the optical performance.

To ensure the mechanical stability of IOLs before commercialization, IOLs are tested according to the ISO 11979:3:2012—Mechanical properties and test methods10, which consists in compressing the IOL in a single-size compression well of 10.00 mm and evaluating the main mechanical biomarkers (axial displacement, tilt, rotation and decentration), which are related to the optical performance of the patient postsurgery11. These mechanical biomarkers are usually measured manually3,4,11,12,13,14, involving both measurement error due to the difficulty of measuring at the micro-scale and significant time cost.

The ISO 11979–3:2012 standard is also used to determine whether modifications to existing models require clinical investigations. However, one limitation of the ISO is that the IOLs intended for the capsular bag must be measured in a compression well with a diameter of 10.00 mm, when the variability of the postcataract capsular bag diameter is relatively higher15,16,17,18.

To account for variability of the postcataract capsular bag and address the tedious work of manual measurement, this study aimed to evaluate seven different IOLs in a quasi-static compression test, from diameter of 11.00 to 9.50 mm with an automatic measuring method. The study measured the mechanical biomarkers of these IOLs using an automatic measuring method called Digital Image Correlation (DIC)19,20, while varying the diameter of the compression well from 11.00 to 9.50 mm.

DIC is a non-interferometric optical method that can accurately measure 3D displacement by using a pair of cameras and surface speckle patterns on the object of study (IOL optics)21. These cameras are placed at different angles to capture images of the object from multiple viewpoints, allowing for 3D reconstruction of its surface. The speckle pattern on the surface of the object is then correlated across two synchronized images to quantify its 3D deformation. Essentially, DIC works by comparing the speckle patterns in two images and calculating how much they have shifted relative to each other, which allows for accurate measurement of the object's surface displacement21. It is worth noting that the use of surface speckle patterns is crucial for the success of DIC, as these patterns allow for accurate tracking of surface deformations that might not be easily visible otherwise. In ophthalmology, DIC has been employed in various studies, such as measuring displacement in sclera and cornea eye inflation tests22,23 and observing corneal deformation in air pulse tests, such as the Corvis ST24.

Table 1 describes the seven IOLs under investigation. These lenses were purposely chosen as they cover the majority of the market for their 3 materials used (hydrophilic and hydrophobic acrylate, and PMMA) and their 6 different haptic designs, being the C-loop design (the repeated one in the study) the most common design worldwide. Each IOL was evaluated 5 times (n = 5).

We performed a quasi-static test to evaluate the mechanical behavior of the IOL in a wide range of compression diameter. The test consisted in compressing the IOL between two rigid clamps from a compression diameter of 11.00 up to 9.50 mm. The clamps were made of High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and the temperature and humidity were those of the operating room (23ºC and 28%). All IOLs were submerged in a saline solution 72 h before testing and were tested immediately after upon removal from the solution.

The two clamps were synchronously displaced at a total speed of 0.01 mm/s, which can be considered as quasi-static25. During the compression test, the main mechanical biomarkers of the IOL, the axial displacement, the tilt, and the rotation, were measured at a frequency of 0.25 Hz. These mechanical biomarkers are related to the visual performance of the IOL inside the eye11. For more information about how to obtain these mechanical biomarkers, see Fig. 3 in Cabeza-Gil et al.11. Additionally, 50 s more were recorded at the end of the test, when the IOLs are compressed to 9.5, to observe possible effects in the mechanical response of the IOL due to the material viscoelasticity25, resulting in a total test duration of 200 s (1.50 mm / 0.01 mm/s + 50 s).

The DIC system consists of two cameras (Imager E Lite, LaVision, Germany) and a desktop computer with a Quad-core processer. The cameras have a spatial resolution of 1280 × 1024 pixels and a maximum frame rate of 500 fps. The cameras were placed at a distance of approximately 25 cm from the IOL, with a mutual distance of around 13 cm. Both cameras were mounted with an identical 200 mm f/4 lens (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) with an opening angle of approximately 30º. The two cameras were internally synchronized with LaVision software and high-power light-emitting diodes (LEDs) fed with distensibility coefficient (DC) to avoid flickering illuminated the sample, see Fig. 2. Prior to conducting the compression tests, LaVision software performs automatic system calibration using a grid pattern.

Setup of the experimental tests.

To enable DIC to work effectively, a random pattern must be present on the specimen. For this purpose, black paint is airbrushed on top of the IOLs. The speckle pattern should have a random character, and the contrast between the speckles and the background should be as high as possible.

To evaluate the accuracy of the DIC method, a controlled axial displacement and rotation were applied to an IOL. A rotation of 5, 10 and 15º and a displacement axial of 0.10, 0.20 and 0.50 mm were applied with a controlled stepped motor. The measurements were repeated three times (n = 3) to ensure their reliability. Any IOL could have been used for this purpose since the axial displacement and rotation were induced; however, AcrySof MA60BM was specifically used.

LaVision software generated 50 (0.25 images/s).vc7 files in each test. These files were processed with the PIVMat 4.20 Toolbox26 in MATLAB R2022a and contained both the reference coordinates and the 3D displacement (ux, uy and uz) of the correlated speckle pattern (IOL optics zone).

Figure 3 summarizes the steps performed to process the speckle pattern data from the IOL, see Fig. 3a,b. First, the IOL optics is recognized from the speckle pattern data, see Fig. 3c. To do so, a circle of radius of 2.0 mm at the center of the speckle pattern data in Fig. 3b is used. This surface circle is assumed to be the optics of the IOL, Fig. 3d. From it, the main biomechanical biomarkers, axial displacement, tilt, and rotation, are obtained.

Post-processing DIC method to obtain the mechanical biomarkers of the IOL in the compression test. The speckle pattern from the IOL (a, b) is filtered to obtain the IOL optics. (c) C, P, Q, R, and S points are used to calculate the mechanical biomarkers. (d) IOL area of interest to quantify biomarkers.

The axial displacement of the intraocular lens is calculated as the displacement along the axial axis of the lens from the central point (point C in Fig. 3c). To consider the possible error made when searching for the IOL optics, the axial displacement (uz, displacement in axis z) is calculated as the averaged value from a surface circle of 0.5 mm from the center.

The tilt and rotation are calculated considering P, Q, R, and S points following the ISO 11,979:310. The optic tilt (\(\Theta\)) was calculated using the following equation:

where slopes s1 and s2 are calculated as \(\frac{PRy}{PRx}\) and \(\frac{QSy}{QSx}\), being PRx,y and QSx,y the relative distance between points (P,Q,R,S) in the x- or -y axis, respectively.

Rotation is calculated as the angle difference between the PRx vector in the horizontal plane at the deformed and reference state. The IOL optics can resemble a solid rigid during the compression test since the part of the IOL that deforms are the haptics27. Therefore, the possible error in the tilt and rotation calculation from this assumption is minimal.

Some tests were discarded due to the non-recognition of the speckle pattern by LaVision software.

The accuracy of the IOL axial displacement and the rotation are reflected in Fig. 4. For the imposed 0.10 mm of axial displacement, DIC methodology ranged from 9.17·10–2 to 10.34·10–2 mm (mean ± std = 9.34·10–2 ± 0.70·10–2 mm). For the imposed 0.20 mm of axial displacement, DIC methodology ranged from 1.99·10–1 to 2.01·10–1 mm (mean ± std = 2.00·10–1 ± 0.21·10–2 mm). For the imposed 0.50 mm of axial displacement, DIC methodology ranged from 4.93·10–1 to 5.07·10–1 mm (mean ± std = 4.98·10–1 ± 0.73·10–2 mm).

Control tests. (a) Axial displacement. (b) Rotation.

For the 5º imposed rotation, the DIC method ranged from 5.11º to 5.32º (mean ± std = 5.20 ± 0.12º). For the 10º imposed rotation, the DIC ranged from 10.16 to 10.31º (mean ± std = 10.21 ± 0.13º), whilst for the 15º imposed rotation, the DIC ranged from 15.22 to 15.23º (mean ± std = 15.23 ± 0.07º). The level of precision of DIC method for IOLs was calculated as the variability range obtained in the control tests, 1.17·10–2 mm for IOL axial displacement and 0.20º for rotation.

Figure 5 shows the plan view of the reference (Ø = 11.00 mm) and deformed state (Ø = 9.50 mm) of the seven IOLs analyzed. Most of the IOL designs presented a small axial displacement (< 0.10 mm) at a compression diameter of 9.50 mm, except for AT LISA and Acrysof MA60BM models, which presented an axial displacement of 1.36 ± 0.20 mm and 0.36 ± 0.82 mm and a tilt of 5.89 ± 2.55º and 8.50 ± 8.45º, respectively. These values are clinically significant, i.e., affecting the patient's visual quality11,28.

Plan view of the reference (øcomp = 11.00 mm) and deformed state (øcomp = 9.50 mm) of the seven IOLs under investigation.

Figure 6 shows the axial displacement and tilt of the stiff IOL designs (AT LISA and Acrysof MA60BM models) through the compression diameter range [11.00–9.50 mm]. AT LISA and Acrysof MA60BM models are stiff designs that probably do not work under those compression levels (lower than 10.50 mm), as they are prone to largely deform the capsule bag29. For compression diameters larger than 10.50 mm, AT LISA barely presented axial displacement (0.00 ± 0.01 mm), tilt (0.03 ± 0.01º), and rotation (0.15 ± 0.08º).

Axial displacement and tilt in the compression tests of the (A) AT LISA and (B) Acrysof MA60BM IOL models.

Figure 7 shows the axial displacement and tilt of the flexible and mixed IOL designs (AcrySof IQ SN6CWS, AKREOS AO, Physiol POD F GF, Bi-Flex and Tecnis) through the compression diameter range [11.00–9.50 mm]. The mechanical behavior of AcrySof IQ SN6CWS and AKREOS AO models was very similar, barely presenting axial displacement, tilt, and rotation. The Tecnis model presented also a similar behavior, except for the tilt, whose value might have a little clinical relevance (1.84º ± 1.32º for Ø = 9.50 mm)11,28. We analyzed in a previous study that that an axial displacement lower than 0.1 mm and tilt lower than 2.0º might not have a clinical relevance, although this also depends on the introduced optical design11.

Axial displacement and tilt in the compression tests of the following IOL models: (A) AcrySof IQ SN6CWS, (B) Akreos AO, (C) Physiol POD F GF, (D) Bi-Flex and (E) Tecnis.

Physiol POD F GF model also barely presented axial displacement up to a compression diameter of 9.70 mm, from where it starts to increase its axial displacement exponentially (Fig. 7c). Physiol POD F GF model presented an adequate mechanical stability before reaching the critical compression diameter (Ø = 9.70 mm) as the mechanical biomarkers were minimal until this compression diameter range.

Biflex model presented a slightly higher axial displacement than AcrySof IQ SN6CWS, AKREOS AO and Tecnis, but those values have little clinical relevance. Table 2 summarizes the mechanical biomarkers for the seven IOLs under investigation at a compression diameter of 10.50, 10.00 and 9.50 mm.

Figure 8 shows the change in the axial displacement and tilt for the seven IOLs under investigation at the end of the test, i.e., after 50 s after compressing until Ø = 9.50 mm. A mean axial displacement change of 0.01 ± 0.04 mm and a mean tilt change of 0.33 ± 0.21º was observed for the seven IOLs. Overall, a repositioning was noted for AT LISA (an axial displacement change of (0.06 ± 0.04 mm) and AcrySof MA60MB (an axial displacement change of (0.05 ± 0.04 mm). The other IOLs did not undergo repositioning, except for one exceptional case in AcrySof IQ SN6CWS, AKREOS AO and Tecnis models were the IOL tilt was restored to 0º.

Change in the axial displacement and tilt (mean and std) during the last 50 s of the tests where the IOLs are compressed at 9.5 mm.

Figure 9 presents the axial displacement and tilt at Ø = 9.50 mm according to the IOL material (See Table 1) and haptic design (flexible, mixed and stiff). A mean and standard deviation axial displacement of 0.05 ± 0.02 mm, 0.70 ± 0.66 mm , and 0.36 mm were obtained for the hydrophobic IOLs, hydrophilic IOLs, and the PMMA IOL. A tilt of 0.93 ± 0.24º, 3.08 ± 0.80º , and 8.50º were obtained for the same groups, respectively. Regarding the haptic design classification, an axial displacement of 0.04 ± 0.01 mm, 0.06 ± 0.02 mm , and 0.86 ± 0.50 mm and a tilt of 0.99 ± 0.25º, 0.51 ± 0.02º , and 7.15 ± 1.30º were obtained for the flexible, mixed and stiff IOL designs. No statistically significant difference of the axial displacement and tilt was found between any of the material groups (p > 0.05) whilst a statistically significant different was found between stiff and the others depending on the classification haptic design.

Axial displacement and tilt (mean and std) at the compression diameter of 9.50 mm according to the IOL material (a) and haptic design (b). The haptic design classification was divided into flexible (AcrySof IQ SN6CWS, Bi-Flex and Tecnis), mixed (Akreos AO and Physiol POD F GF) and stiff designs (AT LISA and AcrySof MA60BM).

This study aimed both to analyze the mechanical stability of seven IOLs with different haptic designs and to provide a method to automatically quantify the IOL mechanical properties under quasi-static compression (Ø [11.00–9.50 mm]) using DIC. DIC avoids the use of manual measurement (For example, images containing a scale11) and might increase the accuracy. The accuracy and reliability of the method was calculated through control tests, which showed an accuracy higher than 0.01 mm and a precision around 1.17·10–2 mm for axial displacement. For rotation, an accuracy and precision of 0.1º mm and around 0.2º, respectively, was obtained.

C-loop IOL designs (AcrySof IQ SN6CWS, AKREOS AO, Tecnis, Biflex) presented the best mechanical response for a compression diameter (Ø) of 9.50 mm as these IOLs are intended to adapt to the capsular bag shape, comparing with the stiff designs (AT LISA and Acrysof MA60BM), which largely deform the bag29. Tecnis model presented a clinically significant tilt, probably caused by the short length of its haptics, which provide a less haptic-contact surface30. The response of Biflex IOL was slightly worse as its design can be considered as mixed between flexible and stiff, as POD F GF model.

The mechanical behavior obtained for the AcrySof SN6CWS model was similar to those obtained in the literature4,12, barely presenting axial displacement, tilt and rotation for all the compression diameter range (Table 2). For the Tecnis IOL, we obtained a lower axial displacement (0.04 ± 0.03 mm) and higher tilt (2.06 ± 1.32 º) for a compression diameter of 10.00 mm than Lane et al.4 (0.14 ± 0.02 mm) and (0.7 ± 0.4 º), respectively, and similar results to Bozukova et al.12 for the axial displacement (0.03 mm) and tilt (0.64º). The difference across studies might be related to the manual measurement variability. We obtained a similar axial displacement for AcrySoft MA60BM at Ø = 9.50 mm (1.21, 1.20 and -0.62 in the three tests performed) than a similar multi-piece IOL, the Sensar AR40e model (Johnson & Johnson, US)12, which resulted in 1.13 mm. We observed that the IOL can moved axially in both -z directions. However, for a 10.00 mm compression diameter we obtained 0.67, 0.66 and 0.56 mm against 0.20 mm12. Observing the fluctuating mechanical behavior of this IOL, this could be produced due to the well diameter variability.

POD F GF results are similar to those obtained in literature12, obtaining an axial displacement and tilt of 0.09 ± 0.06 mm and 0.76 ± 0.50º against 0.09 mm and 1.74º for a compression diameter of 9.50 mm. Similar results were obtained for the other compression diameters. The results obtained are also comparable to in silico values (0.09 ± 0.06 mm against 0.03 mm for Ø = 9.50 mm), providing adequate mechanical stability for all the compression diameter range tested [11.00 to 9.50 mm]31.

Andreas and Eva-Maria Borkenstein30 recently evaluated the haptic-geometry response of five different C-loop IOLs using computed tomography for 11.50, 11.00, 10.00 and 9.00 mm compression diameters. Although they observed a different mechanical response depending on the optic-haptic junction characteristics of the IOLs, they did not quantify the mechanical biomarkers, making difficult the comparison across studies.

One limitation of compressing the IOL in a well according to ISO 11,979:3 or in a quasi-static test between two clamps is that the rotation or decentration are not reliable measures since the test conditions are not similar to those in vivo. The IOL might rotate in vivo because of mechanical stability, surgeon placement, fusion footprint postcapsular bag shrinkage, etc., situations that do not reproduce the IOL compressing between two clamps. One alternative to measure this outcome is the inclusion of in vitro models, which can provide valuable outputs of the overall IOL response in time15. On the other hand, we previously demonstrated numerically that the axial displacement and tilt values can be reliable at the same IOL diameter compression in the tests as in vivo29.

The study highlights the capability of combining quasi-static compression testing with Digital Image Correlation to accurately and automatically quantify the mechanical biomarkers of intraocular lenses (IOLs) across a wide range of compression diameters. Specifically, the method proves effective in identifying the critical compression diameter, where the response of the IOL may become unstable, and detect different mechanical behavior depending on the IOL classification.

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Remón, L., Siedlecki, D., Cabeza-Gil, I. & Calvo, B. Influence of material and haptic design on the mechanical stability of intraocular lenses by means of finite-element modeling. J. Biomed. Opt. 23(03), 1. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jbo.23.3.035003 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Werner, L. Intraocular lenses: Overview of designs, materials, and pathophysiologic features. Ophthalmology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.055 (2021).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Lane, S. S. et al. Comparison of the biomechanical behavior of foldable intraocular lenses. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 30(11), 2397–2402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.03.041 (2004).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Lane, S. et al. Evaluation of intraocular lens mechanical stability. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 45(4), 501–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.10.043 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Crnej, A. et al. Impact of intraocular lens haptic design and orientation on decentration and tilt. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 37(10), 1768–1774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.04.028 (2011).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Ale, J. B. Intraocular lens tilt and decentration: A concern for contemporary IOL designs. Nepal. J. Ophthalmol. 3(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.3126/nepjoph.v3i1.4281 (2011).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Alió, J. L., Plaza-Puche, A. B., Javaloy, J., Ayala, M. J. & Vega-Estrada, A. Clinical and optical intraocular performance of rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOL plate-haptic design versus C-loop haptic design. J. Refract. Surg. 29(4), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20130318-04 (2013).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Pérez-Gracia, J., Varea, A., Ares, J., Vallés, J. A. & Remón, L. Evaluation of the optical performance for aspheric intraocular lenses in relation with tilt and decenter errors. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232546 (2020).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Pérez-Gracia, J., Ares, J., Ávila, F. J. & Remón, L. Effect of decentration, tilt and rotation on the optical quality of various toric intraocular lens designs: A numerical and experimental study. Biomed. Opt. Express https://doi.org/10.1364/boe.447045 (2022).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

BS EN ISO 11979-3:2012. Ophthalmic Implants. Intraocular Lenses. Mechanical Properties and Test Methods. BSI Standards Limited; 2012.

Cabeza-Gil, I., Pérez-Gracia, J., Remón, L. & Calvo, B. Effect of haptic geometry in C-loop intraocular lenses on optical quality. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 114, 104165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104165 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Bozukova, D., Pagnoulle, C. & Jérôme, C. Biomechanical and optical properties of 2 new hydrophobic platforms for intraocular lenses. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 39(9), 1404–1414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.050 (2013).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Bozukova-Dand-Werner, L. et al. Double-C loop platform in combination with hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens materials. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 41(7), 1490–1502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.10.042 (2015).

Article Google Scholar

Mochiji, M., Kaidzu, S., Ishiba, Y., Matsuda, Y. & Tanito, M. Measurement of force required for anterior displacement of intraocular lenses and its defining parameters. Materials 13(20), 4593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13204593 (2020).

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wormstone, I. M., Damm, N. B., Kelp, M. & Eldred, J. A. Assessment of intraocular lens/capsular bag biomechanical interactions following cataract surgery in a human in vitro graded culture capsular bag model. Exp. Eye Res. 205, 108487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2021.108487 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Dick, H. B., Conrad-Hengerer, I. & Schultz, T. Intraindividual capsular bag shrinkage comparing standard and laser-assisted cataract surgery. J. Refract. Surg. 30(4), 228–233. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20140320-01 (2014).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Vasavada, A. & Singh, R. Relationship between lens and capsular bag size. J Cataract. Refract. Surg. 24(4), 547–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(98)80300-3 (1998).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Bluestein, E. C., Wilson, M. E., Wang, X. H., Rust, P. F. & Apple, D. J. Dimensions of the pediatric crystalline lens: Implications for intraocular lenses in children. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus. 33(1), 18–20 (1996).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Campo, A. et al. Digital image correlation for full-field time-resolved assessment of arterial stiffness. J. Biomed. Opt. 19(1), 016008. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jbo.19.1.016008 (2014).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Wu, R., Wu, H., Arola, D. & Zhang, D. Real-time three-dimensional digital image correlation for biomedical applications. J. Biomed. Opt. 21(10), 107003. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jbo.21.10.107003 (2016).

Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar

Schreier, H., Orteu, J.J., & Sutton, M.A.. Image Correlation for Shape, Motion and Deformation Measurements: Basic Concepts, Theory and Applications.; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78747-3

Myers, K.M., Cone, F., Quigley, H., & Nguyen, T.D.. The scleral inflation response of mouse eyes to increases in pressure. In Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Vol 2. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0219-0_11

Whitford, C. et al. Ex vivo testing of intact eye globes under inflation conditions to determine regional variation of mechanical stiffness. Eye Vis. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-016-0052-8 (2016).

Wang, B., Yang, L., Cheng, J., Wang, J. & Mei, Y. In-vivo high-speed biomechanical imaging of the cornea using Corvis ST and digital image correlation. Comput. Biol. Med. 153, 106540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106540 (2023).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Cabeza-Gil, I., Calvo, B., Rico, A., Reinhards-Hervás, C. & Rodríguez, J. Mechanical characterisation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylates used in intraocular lenses through depth sensing indentation. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 126, 104997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104997 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Frederic Moisy (2022). PIVMat 4.20. Published online August 17, 2022. Accessed 17 August, 2022. https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/10902-pivmat-4-20.

Cabeza-Gil, I., Ariza-Gracia, M. Á., Remón, L. & Calvo, B. Systematic study on the biomechanical stability of C-loop intraocular lenses: approach to an optimal design of the haptics. Ann. Biomed. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-019-02432-9 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Pérez-Gracia, J., Ávila, F. J., Ares, J., Vallés, J. A. & Remón, L. Misalignment and tilt effect on aspheric intraocular lens designs after a corneal refractive surgery. PLoS ONE 15(12 December), e0243740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243740 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Cabeza-Gil, I. & Calvo, B. Predicting the biomechanical stability of IOLs inside the postcataract capsular bag with a finite element model. Comput. Methods Program. Biomed. 221, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Borkenstein, A. F. & Borkenstein, E. M. Geometry of acrylic, hydrophobic IOLs and changes in haptic-capsular bag relationship according to compression and different well diameters: A bench study using computed tomography. Ophthalmol. Ther. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-022-00469-z (2022).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Remón, L., Cabeza-Gil, I., Calvo, B., Poyales, F. & Garzón, N. Biomechanical stability of three intraocular lenses with different haptic designs: In silico and in vivo evaluation. J. Refract. Surg. 36(9), 617–624. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20200713-02 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

I. Cabeza-Gil gratefully acknowledges research support from the Margarita Salas postdoctoral fellowship funded by Ministerio de Universidades (Spain) and UnionEuropea-NextGenerationEU. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 956720. PID2020-113822RB-C12/ funded by MCIN/ AEI/https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033. Part of the work was performed by the ICTS \NANBIOSIS" specially by the Tissue and Scaffold Characterization Unit (U13) of the CIBER in Bioengineering, Biomaterials & Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN at the University of Zaragoza). CIBER actions are financed by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III with assistance from the European Regional Development Fund.

Aragón Institute of Engineering Research (i3A), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

Iulen Cabeza-Gil, Javier Frechilla & Begoña Calvo

Biomaterials and Nanomedicine Networking Biomedical Research Centre (CIBER-BBN), Zaragoza, Spain

Begoña Calvo

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

I.C.G. and B.C. conceptualized the study. I.C.G. performed the experiments. J.F. analyzed the experiments. I.C.G. and B.C. reviewed the results. I.C.G. wrote the article. J.F. and B.C. reviewed the article.

Correspondence to Iulen Cabeza-Gil.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Cabeza-Gil, I., Frechilla, J. & Calvo, B. Evaluation of the mechanical stability of intraocular lenses using digital image correlation. Sci Rep 13, 9437 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36694-0

Download citation

Received: 02 February 2023

Accepted: 08 June 2023

Published: 09 June 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36694-0

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.