OPTICAL METROLOGY OF LENSES IMMERSED IN WATER

A FOURTH YEAR THESIS IN Physics In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree BACHELOR OF SCIENCE

Abstract
An experiment was conducted with the aim of completely characterising the optical and physical properties of an intraocular lens (IOL). A theoretical software model of the IOL would then be used to verify the experimental metrology. A FISBA OPTIK Phase HR interferometer was used to characterise a 21.5D IOL of the type Bausch & Lomb Akreos Adapt AO. The optical properties were measured as wave aberration in double transmission through the IOL; physical properties were measured as anterior-posterior surface radii of curvature and deviation from a perfect sphere, apparent apical thickness and back focal length. The hydrophilic nature of this particular IOL material necessitated measurement of the IOL submerged in liquid. The success of a previously performed experiment within the group was built upon, whereby the design and development of a new experimental apparatus allowed measurement of total wave aberration in transmission through the IOL. Accordingly, a high-quality mirror was submerged in the liquid. Some problems encountered in measurement at autocollimation required measurement of a dry Pharmacia 17D IOL in air. Dry IOLs are packaged in a dry atmosphere, thus they are well-suited to measurement in air. Measurement in air was assessed as perfectly adequate; however, measurement in balanced salt solution (BSS) would more closely represent the in situ environment. The anterior and posterior surface deviations and radii of curvature were used together with the apical thickness to create a lens model in Zemax ray-tracing software. The software was then used to confirm experimentally determined values of total IOL transmission wavefront error. The modelled and experimental values of root mean square error differed by just 2.5%. Further refinement of the experimental method and software model would allow transformation of this qualitative proof-of-concept model into an accurate quantitative analysis. With consequent reduction and/ or removal of variables, it would be possible to determine the source of discrepancy between experiment and theory. Complete control of all variables would in fact allow for attribution of any discrepancies to internal lens material inhomogeneities.

ii

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. IOL Variations. .................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1.2. Schematic diagram of a cataracteous crystalline lens. ........................................ 2 Figure 2.1. 3D render of Zernike polynomials two to eleven. ................................................. 4 Figure 2.2. Schematic diagram of the relative measurement positions. ................................. 5 Figure 2.3. Schematic diagram of the confocal position. ....................................................... 5 Figure 3.1. Photograph of the Interferometer. ....................................................................... 8 Figure 4.1. Photograph of the initial IOL stage. ................................................................... 10 Figure 4.2. Photograph of the prototype Meccano stage and liquid bath. ............................ 11 Figure 4.3. Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL [8]. ......................................................................... 13 Figure 4.4. Photograph of the prototype Meccano dry stage.............................................. 14 Figure 4.5. 3D-rendered simulation of the experimental setup. ........................................... 17 Figure 4.6. 2D side-view of the Zemax double pass model. ................................................ 17 Figure 4.7. 2D side-view of the Zemax single pass model. .................................................. 18 Figure 5.1. Interferogram of the water meniscus. ................................................................ 19 Figure 5.2. Confocal interferogram of Bausch & Lomb 21D IOL in water............................. 20 Figure 5.3. Confocal interferogram of Pharmacia 17D IOL in air. ........................................ 21 Figure 5.4. Autocollimated interferogram of Pharmacia 17D IOL anterior surface in air. ...... 21 Figure 5.5. Autocollimated interferogram of Pharmacia 17D IOL posterior surface in air. .... 22 Figure 5.6. Comparison of modelled and experimental anterior 17D IOL surface. ............... 23 Figure 5.7. Comparison of modelled and experimental posterior 17D IOL surface. ............. 23 Figure 5.8. Comparison of modelled and experimental 17D IOL wave aberration. .............. 23 Figure 5.9. Final Zemax user-interface showing lens editor fields. ...................................... 24 Figure 5.10. Final Zemax user-interface showing total wave aberration and 2D layout. ...... 24 Figure 6.1. Examples of the lensing effect of the water meniscus. ...................................... 27

iii

Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures......................................................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2. Intraocular Lens ...................................................................................................... 1 Cataract Surgery ..................................................................................................... 1 Project Aims............................................................................................................ 2

Background.................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Aberration Theory ................................................................................................... 3 Interferometry ......................................................................................................... 3 Phase-Shifting Interferometry ................................................................................. 3 Zernike Polynomials................................................................................................ 4 The Cats Eye Position .......................................................................................... 4 The Autocollimated Position .................................................................................... 5 The Confocal Position ............................................................................................. 5 Characterising the IOL ............................................................................................ 6 IOL Selection and Metrology Criteria ...................................................................... 6

3.

Instrumentation .............................................................................................................. 8 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Twyman-Green Interferometer ......................................................................... 8 Zemax Ray-Tracing Software ................................................................................. 9 Meccano ................................................................................................................. 9

4.

Techniques .................................................................................................................. 10 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Design and Construction of the IOL Stage ............................................................ 10 Calibration of the Interferometer............................................................................ 11 Characterisation of the Retro-Reflective Return Mirror .......................................... 12 Characterisation of the Water Meniscus Lensing Effect ........................................ 12 Metrology of Bausch & Lomb 21.5D IOL in Water ................................................. 12 Metrology of Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL in Air ...................................................... 13 Zemax Ray-Tracing Analysis ................................................................................ 15

5.

Results ......................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Characterisation of the Retro-Reflective Return Mirror .......................................... 19 Characterisation of the Water Meniscus Lensing Effect ........................................ 19 Metrology of Bausch & Lomb 21.5D IOL in Water ................................................. 19 Metrology of Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL in Air ...................................................... 20 Zemax Ray-Tracing Analysis ................................................................................ 22

6.

Discussion. .................................................................................................................. 25 iv

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7. 8. 9.

Design and Construction of the IOL Stage ............................................................ 25 Characterisation of the Retro-Reflective Return Mirror .......................................... 25 Characterisation of the Water Meniscus Lensing Effect ........................................ 25 Metrology of Bausch & Lomb 21.5D IOL in Water ................................................. 26 Metrology of Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL in Air ...................................................... 27 Zemax Ray-Tracing Analysis ................................................................................ 28

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 30 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 31 References .................................................................................................................. 31

1. Introduction
1.1 Intraocular Lens

This project was specifically concerned with the optical metrology of intraocular lenses (IOLs) immersed in water. IOLs are small plastic lenses of typically 6mm diameter and less than 1mm thick. Two particular IOL models are shown in Figure 1.1 below. The central region is called the optic, whereas the odd-shaped features extending from the optic are called the haptics. The haptics shape, size and angulation can vary largely, depending on the manufacturer. IOLs are usually implanted in the eye to replace the existing crystalline lens because it has been clouded over by a cataract, or as a form of refractive surgery to change the eye's optical power.

(a)

(b) Figure 1.1. IOL Variations.

Bausch & Lomb Akreos Adapt AO Aspheric IOL (a) and Bausch & Lomb Akroes M160 IOL (b) [1].

1.2

Cataract Surgery

Cataract surgery is one of the worlds most successful procedures, with approximately 20 million carried out globally and 20,000 carried out in Ireland each year [2]. Due to the ageing society, there are currently 5 million new cataract patients annually, worldwide. The surgery typically involves the replacement of the aged, cataracteous, partially opaque crystalline lens (see Figure 1.2 below) with an artificial intraocular lens (IOL) [3]. When the crystalline lens is removed, the eye is said to be aphakic; with subsequent implantation of the IOL, the eye is said to be pseudophakic. The procedure dramatically reduces internal light scattering and provides for unobstructed retinal image formation [4].

Figure 1.2. Schematic diagram of a cataracteous crystalline lens.

IOL power calculation is currently based on regression analysis and has effective outcomes for people with normal eyes. Unusual eyes are those which are unusually long or short or belong to those patients who have previously had refractive eye surgery. For unusual eyes, the IOL selection method is ineffective in 80% of cases, where post-operative vision is characterised by blurriness and lack of contrast and where satisfactory vision necessitates the use of spectacles. Post-operative retinal image quality is not solely based on correct IOL power calculation; it is also based heavily on the true post-operative position of the IOL and its optical aberrations.

1.3

Project Aims

The main aim of the project was to completely determine the optical and physical characteristics of a particular IOL and subsequently fully characterise their effect on pseudophakic retinal image quality. The anterior and posterior IOL surfaces, together with the apical thickness, could be modelled in Zemax ray-tracing software. The software could then be used to determine the IOLs imaging properties using this simple lens model. However, as already stated, this method only gives a measure of the total wave aberration attributable to individual surface imperfection and does not take into account any aberrations introduced due to IOL material inhomogeneity. Therefore, to completely determine the pseudophakic retinal image quality, it is necessary to experimentally measure the total wave aberration in transmission through the IOL, with subsequent confirmation using the Zemax ray-traced model. Any discrepancies between the two data sets can then be assigned to inhomogeneities in the lens material.

2. Background
2.1 Aberration Theory

The properties of an optical system can be determined through the examination of wave aberration introduced in single (or double) transmission through the system. For a single optical element (e.g. a lens), this method only gives information about the optical imperfections of the system as a whole, however, and does not portray any information about the individual surfaces of the lens. Furthermore, it is impossible to determine whether certain aberrations are due to surface imperfection or internal inhomogeneity. In order to completely characterise the lens, it is necessary to measure not only both lens surfaces and total wave aberration in transmission through the lens, but also the apical lens thickness. The entire lens and consequent image degradation can then be modelled using ray-tracing software. The optical properties of a lens can be measured using an interferometer. The associated software computes the lens imperfections and generates a set of Zernike polynomials, which can be subsequently used to describe the lens properties in ray-tracing software.

2.2

Interferometry

For many years interferometry has been an invaluable tool for the measurement of optical surfaces and systems. Its capability was greatly extended with the advent of highly monochromatic and coherent laser light. It was enhanced yet further with the development of advanced numerical analysis techniques made possible by the power of computers in the 1990s. As a measurement technique it is extremely sensitive and can easily resolve distances that are just a fraction of the wavelength of light. The measured parameter in interferometry is usually the wavefront distortion, with interferometers measuring precisely how an ideal wavefront is modified when it is reflected from a surface or transmitted through an optical window or lens assembly.

2.3

Phase-Shifting Interferometry

The phase-shifting interferometric technique has an important advantage over static fringe analysis whereby seemingly identical concave and convex surface maps can be deciphered. The technique usually involves moving the reference surface, which is perpendicular to the optical axis, by half a wavelength along the axis. This movement is effected by a piezoelectric device and is usually separated into four or five steps, with measurements taken at each step. The five step method has an advantage over the four step method whereby the first and fifth measurements should be identical; thus the method is self-checking. The data can then be phase-unwrapped and the wavefront characterised to a very high degree of accuracy. If is the phase of the wave in radians, where: ,

then 1 2 = is the phase difference between the test and reference beams and if OPD is the optical path difference between two beams, then: [5]

2.4

Zernike Polynomials

Zernike polynomials are a compact set of polynomials which are often used to describe the aberrations of optical assemblies. The wave aberration of a given wavefront is described as its deviation from a perfect wavefront of the same type. The aberration is then decomposed into a finite number of Zernike polynomials so that the total root mean square (RMS) wavefront aberration is minimised. Zernike polynomials form a complete set in two variables that are orthogonal in a continuous fashion over the unit circle, thus necessitating normalisation of pupil coordinates. They are orthogonal only in a continuous fashion and will not, in general, be orthogonal over a discrete set of data points [6-7]. Several common definitions exist for Zernike polynomials, so caution must be exercised when comparing coefficients. For example, the notation adopted in the FISBA Shape software differs from that in the Zemax ray-tracing software; see Section 4.7. Figure 2.1 below is a 3D mesh-type render of Zernike polynomials two to eleven.

Figure 2.1. 3D render of Zernike polynomials two to eleven.

2.5

The Cats Eye Position

If a surface is placed directly at the focus position of a convex lens, then an interference pattern is observed, and this is referred to as a cats eye reflection. The interferogram obtained is generally unhelpful in terms of surface evaluation, as one of the characteristics of the cats eye position is wavefront inversion i.e. the light rays are not retro-reflected. The cats eye is, however, very useful for measuring the radius of curvature, vertex length, and apparent thickness of an optical system.

2.6

The Autocollimated Position

The autocollimated position occurs where light from a focussing lens is normally incident on a test surface, so that the beam is retro-reflected, with imperfections of the test surface showing up as abnormalities in the interferogram. At this position, the focal point of the focussing lens is coincident with the centre of curvature of the test surface, and is therefore useful for measuring radius of curvature.

Figure 2.2. Schematic diagram of the relative measurement positions. Top cats eye (Green) Bottom cats eye (Blue) Autocollimation (Red). Note: The diagram is not to scale.

2.7

The Confocal Position

The focussing lens of the interferometer is positioned so that light enters through the focus position of a convex test piece and emerges collimated (to be retro-reflected by a return flat). The retro-reflected light then propagates back through the test piece and in this way, information about the double pass aberration of the piece can be obtained. In this arrangement, the focus positions of both the interferometer focussing lens and the test piece are coincident.

Figure 2.3. Schematic diagram of the confocal position. Note: The diagram is not to scale.

2.8

Characterising the IOL

There are many ways of characterising optical surfaces and systems. The particular setups used in this experiment allowed the determination of: 1. Radius of Curvature. The radius of curvature was measured as the displacement between the cats eye reflection from the top surface of the IOL and the autocollimated position. 2. Apparent Central Thickness1. The apparent thickness was measured as the displacement between the cats eye reflections from the top and bottom surfaces of the IOL respectively. 3. Back Focal Length. The back focal length was measured as the displacement between the cats eye reflection from the top surface of the IOL and the confocal position. Information about the back focal length can be used to calculate the refractive index of a lens material. 4. Double Pass Wave Aberration. Information about the double-pass wave aberration of the IOL was obtained from double-pass measurements in the confocal arrangement. 5. Surface Deviation in Single reflection at Normal Incidence. Pits/hollows in the IOL surface will cause any light incident there to be phase delayed, with bumps/hills causing phase advancement. In this way, surface abnormalities show up as visible fringes in the interferogram, with each fringe representing an area of equal phase. The phase-shifting software can be used to process the resulting interferogram and calculate the corresponding Zernike coefficients.

2.9

IOL Selection and Metrology Criteria

A dioptric series of Bausch and Lomb Akreos Adapt AO IOLs were received prior to experimentation. It was decided to measure the 21.5D Bausch & Lomb IOL, which, out of the series of received IOLs, best matched the most commonly implanted IOL power of 21D [2].The particular type of IOL material was a hydrophilic acrylic copolymer, with the IOLs packaged in liquid. A model of the IOL is shown in Figure 1.1 (a); the haptic features are seen on the top right and bottom left and serve to indicate that the anterior lens surface is facing forwards. A recent experiment performed by the author, in collaboration with Matt Sheehan, indicated that measuring this IOL material in air was highly problematic. The thin layer of liquid that covered the IOLs after removal from their containment was unsurprisingly found to dry out. However, this drying out of the liquid caused any interferograms to fluctuate wildly due to the induced constantly-changing aberrations. Thus problems similar to, for example, the drying of the tear film in retinal imaging were encountered. Without the use of a sophisticated adaptive optic system, the method of hydrophilic IOL measurement in air was deemed impossible. Furthermore, there was some ambiguity as to whether the IOLs physical characteristics changed through drying out in air. Consequently, it was decided to measure the IOL submerged in liquid. The measurement of an IOL is a difficult task. The lens itself is small and fragile and requires delicate manipulation using a tweezers or other sensitive instrument. Care must be taken to ensure that at no point is the optic region touched with anything but the cleanest and smoothest of devices, lest any damage be caused there. It is not simply sufficient to
1

Note that due to refraction at the air/ IOL interface, it was necessary to model the system in ZEMAX to calculate the real thickness of the IOL.

place the IOL on an optical bench, since that would damage or dirty the optic region. Furthermore, the haptics which extend from the optic would be weighted downwards, causing strain on the (often flexible) optic and incorrectly introducing artefacts there. Therefore, it is necessary to place the IOL on a stage which not only allows light to pass unobstructed through the IOL, but also provides adequate haptic and optic support. When measuring an IOL, particular care must be taken to ensure that the rotation of the IOL about its optical axis is kept constant, or at least well-defined, for all measurements. If it was not, then the surfaces would be measured as being incorrectly rotated relative to each other. For example, when measuring the anterior and posterior IOL surfaces, the IOL must be flipped about a particular known axis; otherwise the measured surfaces will give incorrect total wavefront aberration when modelled in software. The aforementioned recent experiment was carried out to determine the characteristics of the Bausch & Lomb IOL series. However, the particular experimental technique adopted allowed only determination of the anterior & posterior surface deviations, radii of curvature and back focal lengths; and apical thickness. It was deemed too difficult, too time-consuming, or too complicated to measure the wave aberration in double transmission through the IOL. Improvement upon the success of this previous experiment therefore necessitated the design and development of a new apparatus and experimental technique which would allow effective measurement of wave aberration in double pass through the IOL.

3. Instrumentation
3.1 The Twyman-Green Interferometer

All measurements of IOL properties were performed using a FISBA Optik Phase HR Twyman-Green Interferometer. It allows implementation of the phase-shifting interferometric method owing to the inclusion of a piezo-electric actuator contained within the device. It operates using a frequency-stabilised He-Ne auxiliary laser ( =632.8nm). The interferometer was mounted vertically on a Phase ophthalmic platform. Vertical translation of the interferometer was accurately performed using the in-built micrometer with smallest ruled division of 0.01mm. A photo of the apparatus is shown in Figure 3.1 below. The interferometer was accompanied by Shape interferometry software. The software facilitates calibration of the system and measurement of surface deviation in single reflection at normal incidence and wave aberration in double transmission, amongst others. The phase-shifting technique is utilised in deciphering interferograms, with the resultant wave aberration displayed as measurement maps on the user interface. The software can then be used to resolve the maps into a user-specified number of Zernike coefficients for subsequent export.

Interferometer Coarse Adjust Screw Objective Micrometer

Tip/Tilt Table

Phase Ophthalmic Mount Figure 3.1. Photograph of the Interferometer.

The interferometer is a two-beam system, whereby an expanded and collimated beam of the highly monochromatic He-Ne laser light is incident on a beam splitter, where equal beam intensities are reflected and transmitted. One of these beams is referred to as the reference beam and is created by reflection from an extremely accurate reference surface. The second beam is reflected from the test surface, and is referred to as the object beam. The two beams are then made to interfere, with the resulting interferogram on the CCD camera displayed as a live image intensity distribution on the software interface. The interferometer functionality can be extended through the use of spherical objectives. A Lens EF 15/43 spherical objective, together with a Lens DCI 2 10/ beam 8

expander were employed in this experiment. The notation for lens specifications is Lens [Model] [Diameter/Focal_length]. Thus, the employed objective had an f-number of f/2.9.

3.2

Zemax Ray-Tracing Software

Zemax is a comprehensive ray-tracing software package which allows the design, optimisation and characterisation of optical systems and lens assemblies. It has a userfriendly and intuitive interface allowing easy description and modification of optical element parameters. It is a powerful tool for the analysis and visualisation of system performance such as spot diagrams and ray-fan plots and boasts a comprehensive suite of in-built optimisation tools for the optimal design of a particular optical arrangement. In this experiment, the measured IOL surface deviations, radii of curvature and apical thickness could be inserted into Zemax, with the software used to calculate the resultant total wave aberration. This theoretical result could then be compared to the experimentally determined value of double pass aberration.

3.3

Meccano

Meccano is a robust construction system comprising re-usable metal components, with nuts and bolts to connect the pieces. It enables the construction and implementation of simple working models and mechanical devices. The combination of its relatively low cost and large range of components makes it ideal for constructing almost any conceivable structure. Meccano was highly suitable for this project since it required custom-built structures over a short period of time. It would have been impractical to wait for the manufacture of such structures in the department workshop.

4. Techniques
4.1 Design and Construction of the IOL Stage2

As already stated, the design and development of a new apparatus and experimental technique was necessary to improve upon the success of previous experiments. The particular difficulty which previously hindered the measurement of double pass wave aberration was the availability of an apparatus which allowed independent tip/tilt and translation of both the high-quality retro-reflective mirror and the IOL itself. Consequently, a considerable amount of time was spent in designing and constructing an IOL stage which not only provided adequate IOL support, but also provided for relative tilt of the IOL and return mirror. Note that measurement of the submerged IOL also necessitated submersion of the IOL platform and the high-quality return mirror in a liquid bath. Initially, an IOL stage was successfully constructed using Linos optical bench components, shown in Figure 4.1 below. Although optical bench components are manufactured to exacting dimensions, they are relatively expensive and typically only a few components will be readily available in the laboratory environment. Due to the lack of multifarious components, the apparatus design was not ideal. In particular, the small rod suspending the IOL platform entered the water quite close to the IOL itself, resulting in large curvature of the water meniscus due to larger surface tension at that point; see Figure 4.1.

IOL Platform

Figure 4.1. Photograph of the initial IOL stage. The outer legs would surround the liquid bath, with the IOL and supporting platform submerged in the liquid.

It became increasingly clear that high-quality components were not necessary, and that a large variety of components was highly desirable. Accordingly, it was decided to create a new prototype stage using Meccano. A suitable stage was constructed, with the Meccano components offering a much wider range of customisation possibilities. A photo of the stage is shown in Figure 4.2 below. The IOL stage rested on the Phase ophthalmic table, enabling tip, tilt and horizontal translation of the IOL.

The stage is defined here and throughout as the entire structure used to hold the IOL, whereas the platform is that particular part of the stage which the IOL actually rested on.

10

Liquid Bath IOL Platform Mirror Bath Tip/Tilt Controls

Figure 4.2. Photograph of the prototype Meccano stage and liquid bath. The outer legs can be seen to surround the bath, with the IOL platform and mirror submerged in the bath. Note that the IOL platform was covered with black tape to avoid any unwanted reflections there from.

As can be seen from the photo, the water bath with submerged mirror was also placed on its own tip & tilt platform. The construction of this bath platform was vital to the success of the experiment, since it allowed essential alignment of the mirror with the interferometer. This therefore ensured that any collimated light emerging from the aligned IOL would retrace its path back to the interferometer. The bath platform was supported using Linos cageplates and rods, with the delicate tip & tilt control achieved using three upward-facing potentiometer-type screws.

4.2

Calibration of the Interferometer

Calibration of the interferometer was necessary in order to remove aberrations inherent in its optical assembly, thus ensuring that the measurements obtained related directly to the part under test. When measurements were performed using collimated light, the system was calibrated using a large plane FISBA calibration surface of 4% reflectivity and surface flatness of greater than /20 ( =632.8nm). Calibration of the Lens EF 15/43 spherical objective employed in the experiment required use of a spherical reference. A FISBA spherical calibration surface with a radius of curvature of 10mm, surface accuracy of /20 ( =632.8nm) and reflectivity of 4% was used for this purpose. At the confocal position, the rays of light striking the surface at 90o were retro-reflected and a null fringe condition was obtained. A virtual electronic Calibration Mask was used in the Shape software to mask out any undesirable outer fringing due to diffraction effects, ghost images on the CCD camera and indistinct aperture edges.

11

4.3

Characterisation of the Retro-Reflective Return Mirror

It was desired to measure the optical properties of an IOL using a spherical objective. This required calibration using the FISBA spherical calibration surface. However, at the confocal position, the light is retro-reflected from the plane mirror and thus any imperfections in the mirror would incorrectly show up as aberrations in the IOL. If the system has already been calibrated for use with the spherical objective, then it can only be used with that objective and cannot be used to account for imperfections in the mirror. Consequently, it was necessary to characterise the mirror prior to any measurements of wave aberration in double transmission through the IOL. The interferometer was fitted with a diameter 10mm beam expander and was first calibrated using the large FISBA flat. The mirror was then aligned with the collimated interferometer output and a measurement of the mirror surface was taken sixteen times. The average mirror surface error could then be added to the error budget of the double-pass wave aberration measurements.

4.4

Characterisation of the Water Meniscus Lensing Effect

Due to the finite radius of the employed water bath, surface tension caused some curvature of the water meniscus at the periphery. Note that this lensing effect occurs even for a perfectly flat water surface and can be easily modelled in Zemax; however extra care must be taken to measure and account for the meniscus curvature. To reduce curvature of the water meniscus, a large diameter of approximately 9cm was chosen for the water bath. It was decided to measure the meniscus curvature by simply reflecting collimated light from the top surface of the water. The resultant interferogram could then be studied with the Zernike defocus term indicating the amount of curvature. A large amount of time was spent aligning the water surface with the interferometer. It was not simply a case of tilting the water bath, since the bath simply moved around the water, with the water surface remaining flat according to gravity. It was thus a case of aligning the entire interferometer mount with the (level) water. After much deliberation, a satisfactorily low number of tilt fringes were observed in the interferogram and so a measurement of the water surface was taken. It was found to take an unreasonably large amount of time to completely remove all tilt fringes. Since the primary interest was in determining the curvature of the water, it was decided to ignore any rotationally invariant terms obtained in the interferogram; the tilt fringes were accordingly ignored.

4.5

Metrology of Bausch & Lomb 21.5D IOL in Water

Prior to any measurement/alignment, it was necessary to switch on the laser, after which a 20 minute period was required to facilitate stabilization of the laser output. The IOL, IOL platform and mirror were submerged in water, as per Figure 4.2 above. However, before placement and alignment of the IOL stage, it was necessary to align the mirror with the interferometer. The spherical interferometer objective was removed, and the mirror adjusted using the three bath platform screws to obtain a null fringe condition. The IOL was handled by the haptics and centred over a hole of diameter approx 6.5mm in the IOL platform. The hole was slightly larger than the IOL optic body to eliminate the possibility of damaging the optic through contact with the platform. The hole was also small enough to ensure that the optic was adequately supported, and that the IOL was not suspended purely by the outer regions of the haptics. This therefore reduced possible effects 12

of strain caused by suspension from the haptics, such as flattening of the top surface and introduction of surface artefacts. Below the IOL platform was the aligned mirror, which allowed the confocal position to be determined. Alignment of the IOL was carried out by ensuring that each of the confocal, cats eye and autocollimated fringe patterns were centred on the CCD camera when the interferometer was at their respective vertical locations. Any misalignment saw the patterns drift to one side with vertical movement of the coarse adjustment/ micrometer gauge, and was removed with suitable adjustment of the tilt and/ or lateral translation of the IOL stage. After alignment of the mirror and IOL, it was decided to proceed with measurements. The micrometer screw was used to accurately move the interferometer between successive points of interest, with the value on the micrometer scale recorded at any particular point. At the confocal and autocollimated locations, a virtual electronic Measurement Mask was applied to mask out any unwanted fringing due to edge effects of the IOL and/or the interferometers optical assembly itself. To ensure that the orientation of the IOL was well-defined when measuring the anterior and posterior surfaces, one of the non-featured haptics was marked. It was consequently possible to not only determine which of the IOL surfaces was facing forwards, but also the rotation of that particular surface. Between measurements, the IOL was flipped carefully about a vertical axis through the IOL. Unfortunately, some complications were observed while measuring the anterior and posterior surface deviations at the autocollimated position. Firstly, a weak reflection caused by the small change in refractive index at the water/IOL interface resulted in very low contrast interferograms. Secondly, the water meniscus served to diverge the converging objective beam at the autocollimated position. This resulted in a slower beam in the water, and consequently only a small portion of the IOL surface was covered at that position. Without the availability of a faster objective lens, it was decided to alternatively measure a dry-packed hydrophobic IOL in air.

4.6

Metrology of Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL in Air

Without a faster objective lens, the unavoidable complications associated with metrology in water necessitated measurement of a dry IOL. It was decided to measure a Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL, since, due to limited availability of various IOL powers, it best matched the most commonly implanted 21D. The IOL is shown in Figure 4.3 below. Note in particular the s, or backwards s shaped haptics as distinct from the haptics of the Bausch & Lomb model.

Figure 4.3. Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL [8].

13

Measurement of the IOL in air obviated the need for the water bath and accordingly, the IOL stage could be made less unwieldy. A new IOL stage was constructed, as illustrated in Figure 4.4 below.

IOL Platform IOL Mirror Mirror Tip/Tilt Controls

Figure 4.4. Photograph of the prototype Meccano dry stage. The outer legs can be seen to surround the mirror. Note that the IOL platform was again covered with black tape to avoid unwanted reflections.

Once again, pre-alignment of the mirror with the interferometer was necessary and was performed using the three vertical tip/tilt screws. The IOL stage was then placed carefully over the mirror, taking great care not to touch it directly. The IOL was handled carefully by the haptics and was placed over a diameter 6.5mm hole in the platform. As was the case for wet metrology, alignment of the IOL was carried out by ensuring that each of the confocal, cats eye and autocollimated fringe patterns were centred on the CCD camera when the interferometer was at their respective vertical locations. Any misalignment was removed with suitable adjustment of the tilt and/ or lateral translation of the IOL stage. After alignment of the mirror and IOL, it was decided to proceed with the dry measurements. The micrometer screw was again used to move the interferometer between successive points of interest, with the value on the micrometer scale recorded at any particular point. The points of interest were located and recorded four times for each IOL orientation. At the confocal and autocollimated locations, another (different) virtual electronic Measurement Mask was applied to mask out any unwanted fringing. To ensure that the orientation of the IOL was well-defined when measuring the anterior and posterior surfaces, one of the s-shaped haptics was marked with a felt-tipped pen. Thus, it was possible to determine which of the IOL surfaces was facing forwards, and also the rotation of that particular surface. Between measurements, the IOL was flipped carefully about an axis joining the meeting points of the haptics with the optic region. Clear measurement maps were obtained at both the confocal and autocollimated positions, with full coverage of both the anterior and posterior surfaces in the autocollimated position. With this in mind, it was decided to begin modelling of the measured IOL parameters in Zemax. 14

4.7

Zemax Ray-Tracing Analysis

Before deciding the orientation of the IOL in Zemax, it was first necessary to determine which IOL surface was actually anterior, and which was posterior. In terms of balancing aberrations when illuminated by collimated light, it is advantageous for the most curved surface of a lens to face the collimated light, with the less curved side facing the focal region [2]. Measurements of the IOL surfaces indicated that one surface was indeed more curved that the other. This surface was initially deemed the anterior surface since, when implanted in the eye, the anterior lens surface is facing (almost) collimated light. Note that the light is not actually collimated, due to corneal refraction; however, it will suffice to assume so in this approximation. Furthermore, it seemed reasonable to assume that wave error in double pass through the lens would exhibit less spherical aberration when the anterior surface faced the collimated light. Indeed, it was found experimentally that least spherical aberration was observed when the preliminarily appointed anterior surface faced the collimated light. With these evidences, it was decided to model the appointed anterior surface as facing the collimated light in Zemax. It was noted that the experimentally determined apical IOL thickness was an apparent thickness caused by refraction at the air/IOL interface. It was therefore necessary to convert this to a real distance using Zemax. However, it was not simply a case of multiplying by the refractive index of the IOL since the surface sag needed to be taken into account. The measurement maps obtained in the Shape software were resolved into the first eleven Zernike coefficients, up to and including spherical aberration. The coefficients were exported to a text file after each successful interferometric measurement. Analysis of the text file indicated that the Shape convention for Zernike polynomials differed from that in Zemax. It was therefore necessary to rearrange and normalise the exported Shape Zernike coefficients before subsequent importation to Zemax. Table 4.1 below indicates the discrepancy between the two conventions.

Shape Coefficient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Polynomial 1 Description Polynomial 1

Zemax Description

Table 4.1. Indication of the discrepancy between conventions adopted in Shape and Zemax

15

The anterior and posterior IOL surfaces were modelled as Zernike standard sag surfaces in Zemax. This option allowed definition of the optical characteristics of both surfaces in terms of their standard (rearranged and normalised) Zernike coefficients obtained from the Shape software. The interferometer Lens 15/43 objective was modelled as a paraxial lens. In Zemax, the paraxial surface acts as an ideal thin lens [9].

To simulate double pass wave aberration of the IOL, it was necessary to model the system in the confocal arrangement i.e. when the emergent light was collimated. The problem of optimising the objective-IOL distance for collimated emergent light was solved using a second paraxial lens directly behind the IOL. The distance between this second paraxial lens and the image plane, and its focal length were fixed to 100mm (the default paraxial lens focal length in Zemax is 100mm). Now, the image plane RMS spot size is clearly minimised if collimated light is incident on the paraxial lens, since that is the definition of a lens focal length. Since the paraxial lens is placed directly after the IOL, it is therefore clear that the minimum image plane RMS spot size occurs for collimated light emerging from the IOL. The optimal objective-IOL distance can thus be found by minimising the image plane RMS spot size. This was performed using a Zemax merit function. The merit function is, after [10], a numerical representation of how closely an optical system meets a specified set of goals. In this case, the goal is minimal image plane RMS spot size with the objectiveIOL distance as the single variable. After optimisation, the technique can be qualitatively verified by ignoring the second paraxial lens; collimated light should emerge from the IOL. The collimated light was then reflected by a MIRROR surface type. In Zemax, after reflection from a mirror, surfaces are modelled a second time, as though the light propagates through the mirror, with distances entered as negative values. Extra care must be taken, however, when entering radii of curvature after the mirror element. The convention is that a radius is positive if the centre of curvature is to the right (a positive distance along the local z axis) from the surface vertex, and negative if the centre of curvature is to the left (a negative distance along the local z axis) from the surface vertex. This is true independent of the number of mirrors in the system [11]. Thus, on reflection from the mirror, the radii are not negated as with distances. Figure 4.5 below is a 3D-render of the experimental setup, as modelled in Zemax; Figure 4.6 is a 2D side-view of the Zemax model. Note that the light does not appear to exactly re-trace its path through the IOL. This was an un-avoidable effect caused by the spherical aberration induced in single pass through the IOL and was not simply an error in objective-IOL distance optimisation. Note also that the IOL-mirror distance was approximated experimentally by photographing a ruler beside the apparatus.

16

Figure 4.5. 3D-rendered simulation of the experimental setup.

Figure 4.6. 2D side-view of the Zemax double pass model. The objective beam (left) enters the IOL at the confocal position and emerges collimated, to be retro-reflected from the mirror (right). The beam then passes back through the IOL to the image plane (centre). Note that the posterior surface is facing to the left, with the anterior surface facing to the right.

The next step was to define the surfaces in terms of their Zernike coefficients. Particular difficulty arose when entering those coefficients for the first anterior surface (which faced to the right) and the second anterior and posterior surfaces after the mirror. It was noted that when measuring a surface with the interferometer, that surface faced the interferometer. However, when modelling the first anterior surface in Zemax, the light entered from the back of that surface. Thus, the sign of all coefficients required inversion to account for looking at the back of the surface, with certain coefficients requiring inversion to account for anti-symmetry about the vertical axis [2]. Taking these two factors into account, coefficients three, four, six, seven, nine and eleven were inverted for the anterior surface (using the Zemax naming convention). Further difficulty was encountered when entering the coefficients for the surfaces after the mirror, since those post-mirror distances are negative. It was decided to use the original anterior coefficients since the light faced that surface, with the posterior coefficients inverted accordingly, with all coefficients inverted again to account for post-mirror distances being negative. Finally, the image plane was modelled at the focal

17

point of the objective lens, where the wave aberration in double transmission through the lens could be studied. After modelling the system in double pass, it was noted that the coefficient negation system could be erroneous, and that any slight variation of coefficients was time consuming; a simpler model was therefore sought. It was remarked that the wave aberration induced in double pass through a system is simply double that induced in single pass [2]. Accordingly, the system could be modelled in single pass, with the resultant wave aberration simply doubled to simulate double pass. Moreover, it was noted that the FISBA Shape software outputs the results of double pass measurements as single pass wave aberration errors [12]. Therefore, in any case, it was necessary to only model half of the experimental setup i.e. reflection from the mirror and the subsequent second pass through the IOL did not have to be modelled. The mirror and second IOL surfaces were thus removed. As before, the objective-IOL distance was optimised to minimise image plane RMS spot size when focussing using the second paraxial lens. The method was again qualitatively checked by temporarily ignoring the paraxial lens; the emergent light was indeed collimated. This time, however, the second paraxial lens remained in place to focus the collimated emergent light onto the image plane, with the single pass wave aberration errors viewed there; see Figure 4.7 below.

Figure 4.7. 2D side-view of the Zemax single pass model. The objective beam (left) enters the IOL at the confocal position and emerges collimated. It is then focussed onto the image plane (right) by a paraxial lens placed directly after the IOL. Note that the posterior surface is facing to the left, with the anterior surface facing to the right.

18

5. Results

5.1

Characterisation of the Retro-Reflective Return Mirror

The sixteen measurement values for the retro-reflective mirror were found to be highly consistent. The surface peak-to-valley and root mean square (RMS) values are quoted as a fraction of the wavelength of the laser light ( =632.8nm). The errors were calculated as the standard error of the mean.

5.2

Characterisation of the Water Meniscus Lensing Effect

Characterisation of the water meniscus lensing effect was found to be problematic. The water meniscus was found to fluctuate constantly, even after extended periods with no noise or movement in the laboratory. Figure 5.1 is an example interferogram of the water meniscus.

Figure 5.1. Interferogram of the water meniscus. Note the false ripples on the map due to movement of the water meniscus.

5.3

Metrology of Bausch & Lomb 21.5D IOL in Water

A series of measurements were taken for the Bausch & Lomb IOL in the confocal position. The IOL was oriented with the anterior surface facing the collimated light (toward the mirror). For each measurement, the corresponding surface deviation map and Zernike polynomials were saved to disk. At the end of the measurement trial, the surface deviation maps were studied to see which gave the most complete coverage, or which were missing the least data points, if any. Data points were missed in the interferogram if the image intensity at that point

19

was not high enough and occurred, for example, if a dust particle was present. Figure 5.2 below represents the best map obtained.

Figure 5.2. Confocal interferogram of Bausch & Lomb 21D IOL in water. The image on the left is the interferogram as seen on the CCD camera. The image on the right is the interferogram as interpreted by Shape.

As already stated, the water meniscus caused divergence of the objective beam at the autocollimated position and hence the beam was slower in the water. The autocollimated measurement maps were accordingly small. They therefore only represent a small portion of the surface near the centre and do not represent the surface as a whole. Consequently, they are deemed useless and are not included here.

5.4

Metrology of Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL in Air

The same procedure was carried out for the dry as for the wet measurements, whereby several measurements were taken for each of the positions of interest. In this case, two different sets of maps were obtained for the IOL in the autocollimated position, one set for each lens surface facing the mirror. As previously outlined, it was reasoned that the anterior surface should be facing the collimated light (the mirror) when the maps exhibited the least spherical aberration. Subsequent analysis of the Zernike coefficients indicated that one of the orientations did indeed exhibit less spherical aberration; thus, it was decided to use those maps as the wave aberration of the lens, with the surface facing the mirror deemed the anterior surface. Figure 5.3 is the best obtained confocal interferogram for that lens orientation. To the left of the software map is the interferogram as seen on the CCD camera, shown here again for completeness.

20

Figure 5.3. Confocal interferogram of Pharmacia 17D IOL in air. The image on the left is the interferogram as seen on the CCD camera. The image on the right is the interferogram as interpreted by Shape.

The anterior and posterior surfaces were completely filled by the objective beam at the autocollimated position, in strong contrast to the same position in the wet measurements. Several measurements of both surfaces were again taken, with the fullest map chosen as the representative measurement; they are shown in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 below. The interferograms as seen on the CCD are not shown here, since they do not contribute anything in particular to the discussion.

Figure 5.4. Autocollimated interferogram of Pharmacia 17D IOL anterior surface in air.

21

Figure 5.5. Autocollimated interferogram of Pharmacia 17D IOL posterior surface in air.

The micrometer reading was recorded for each of the confocal, top and bottom cats eyes and the autocollimated positions for each IOL orientation. The procedure was carried out four times, with the values subsequently used to calculate back focal lengths, radii of curvature and apparent apical thicknesses. All values are included in Table 5.1 below. Note that the error values were calculated as the standard error of the mean. It was deemed necessary to only determine the real apical thickness for one lens orientation and so only that thickness is included; see Section 6.6 for a discussion on its error. Its value was calculated as:

Trial # 1 2 3 4 Average Error

Anterior surface Back Focal Length 18.020 18.020 17.975 17.965 17.995 0.015

Radius 15.530 15.545 15.575 15.625 15.569 0.021

Apical Thickness 0.580 0.570 0.575 0.580 0.576 0.002

Posterior Surface Back Focal Length 17.950 17.990 17.960 17.970 17.968 0.009

Radius 21.865 21.905 21.890 21.870 21.883 0.009

Apical Thickness 0.575 0.570 0.570 0.570 0.571 0.001

Table 5.1. Experimentally measured physical parameters of the 17D IOL.

5.5

Zemax Ray-Tracing Analysis

The rearranged and normalised Zernike coefficients obtained from the Shape software for the anterior and posterior surfaces were entered into Zemax, as outlined above. The resultant surfaces are shown below beside the experimental maps, for comparison, in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7.

22

Figure 5.6. Comparison of modelled and experimental anterior 17D IOL surface. The experimental map is shown on the left, with the resultant Zemax model on the right.

Figure 5.7. Comparison of modelled and experimental posterior 17D IOL surface. Again, the experimental map is shown on the left, with the resultant Zemax model on the right.

After definition of the anterior and posterior surfaces, the wave aberration in transmission through the IOL was modelled. The simulated interferogram is compared to the experimental interferogram in Figure 5.8 below.

Figure 5.8. Comparison of modelled and experimental 17D IOL wave aberration.

23

The values and percentage differences for the respective experimental and modelled peakto-valley and root mean square errors are listed in Table 5.1 below. The wavefront errors are quoted as a fraction of . ( =632.8nm)
Peak-to-valley Experimental Modelled % Difference 1.99 1.62 18.6% Root mean square 0.39 0.40 2.5%

Table 5.1. List of experimental vs modelled total wavefront errors, including % difference.

Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10 below are screenshots of the final Zemax user interface showing lens editor fields, and total wave aberration and 2D layout, respectively. The lens editors are those in which the lens data parameters were entered.

Figure 5.9. Final Zemax user-interface showing lens editor fields.

Figure 5.10. Final Zemax user-interface showing total wave aberration and 2D layout.

24

6. Discussion.

6.1

Design and Construction of the IOL Stage

The design and construction of the IOL stage required a considerable amount of effort and time. The particular difficulty arose in allowing independent tip, tilt and translation controls for both the IOL and the mirror. The choice of potentiometer-type screws for the bath tip/tilt table may seem trivial, or even ridiculous; however it was only through the use of such random components that said table could have been built. The initial Linos stage was discarded since the rod suspending the platform entered the water too close to where the IOL would be located. Moreover, the rod was not symmetric about the IOL location, so the meniscus would not only have been highly curved, but it would also have been anti-symmetric; this anti-symmetric meniscus would have been exceedingly difficult to measure and account for in the Zemax model. Thus, it was decided to opt for the Meccano model, since the platform supports entered the water symmetrically much farther from the IOL location. The Meccano stage also allowed greater customisation possibilities. Furthermore, the IOL stage had to be designed such that it could be removed and replaced without disturbing the mirror. This was useful for example when pre-aligning the mirror with the interferometer. In the end, a satisfactory prototype was designed which allowed all of the above and also minimised the IOL-mirror distance. Minimum IOL-mirror distance was necessary to reduce errors due to mirror misalignment in the light re-tracing its path back through the IOL.

6.2

Characterisation of the Retro-Reflective Return Mirror

Measurements of the retro-reflective mirror were found to be highly consistent, evidenced in the values for the standard error of the mean. The mirror was measured as having zero RMS surface error. However, it is non-physical to assume that the RMS surface error was exactly zero; it was simply zero within the specified number of decimal places in the Shape software. It seemed reasonable to assume that the mirror could be so flat, since it had a relatively large diameter and ample thickness. It was noted that the manufacture of optical flats is far easier for those which are relatively large; thus, that sizeable mirror could be manufactured to a high degree of flatness. As previously stated, it was not possible to simultaneously calibrate the interferometer for measurement of plane and spherical surfaces. It was therefore necessary to include the mirror surface error in an error budget for the double pass wave aberration errors. Owing to the mirror RMS surface error figure of zero, it was decided to simply ignore any mirror surface error, since the aberrations introduced in double pass through the IOL would be an order of magnitude greater in any case.

6.3

Characterisation of the Water Meniscus Lensing Effect

As previously stated, characterisation of the water meniscus was found to be highly problematic. The appeal of interferometry as a measurement technique is in its ability to resolve extremely small distances. However, without the use of sophisticated self-correcting interferometers, this sensitive technique is highly susceptible to mechanical vibration. Thus, 25

the sensitivity is self perpetuating. It was observed that the movement of cars outside the building and the closing of doors in the corridor caused turbulent meniscus motion. It is important to note that the meniscus appeared perfectly still to the eye. However, a single fringe on the interferogram represented surface error of one wavelength of light. Accordingly, surface motion of just ~700nm would cause a fringe to continuously drift across the interferogram, rendering it unreadable. The effects of meniscus motion can be seen in Figure 5.1. The Shape software phase-unwrapping algorithm can be seen to have broken down in regions where motion was excessive. In regions where the interferogram was successfully captured, the measurement map is characterised by a rippling effect incorrectly introduced by the meniscus motion. This rippling effect erroneously introduces large amounts of higher-order Zernike terms in the map and so the map is deemed futile. Furthermore, as with the mirror surface error, the small peak-to-valley and RMS values of 0.26 and 0.02 (expressed as a fraction of =632.8nm) would be an order of magnitude less than the IOL wave aberration errors in any instance.

6.4

Metrology of Bausch & Lomb 21.5D IOL in Water

The high-quality double pass interferogram of the 21.5D IOL in water is shown in Figure 5.2. It represents a breakthrough in IOL metrology which was previously thought impossible, due to the inherent complications in measurement at the confocal position. A very slight amount of shading is barely visible in the CCD interferogram on the left-hand side. This shading, which is characteristic of an astigmatic wavefront, was clearly resolved by the Shape software in the image to the right. Thus, the phase-shifting interferometric technique is highly accurate and is capable of resolving features that are scarcely visible to the human eye. The choice of water as the submersion liquid is a contentious issue. It is important to note that this project was concerned in particular with the proof of the concept of double pass IOL metrology in water. The main focus was not in obtaining quantitative results for the exact determination of IOL aberration, but was in qualitatively confirming a metrology that was previously thought impossible. However, the choice of water is still reasonable [2]. Water is readily available, its index of refraction has been well characterised for a range of wavelengths and temperatures and it is physicochemically representative of the in situ environment [13-15]. It was noted that the use of balanced salt solution (BSS) would have been preferable since it would better mimic the in situ environment; however, lack thereof rendered its employment impossible. The main limiting factor to the wet measurement technique was the small size of the obtained autocollimated maps, due to diversion of the objective beam at the air/water interface. According to Snells law [16], light bends toward the normal at the point of incidence when passing from a rarer to denser medium. With the interferometer at the autocollimated position, the objective beam is converging at the air/water interface, thus the water meniscus serves to bend the light rays away from the optical axis. With the interferometer at the confocal position, the objective beam is diverging and so the meniscus serves to bend the light rays toward the optical axis. An illustration of the effect is shown in Figure 6.1 below. Thus, at the autocollimated position, the objective beam was accordingly slower and hence poor coverage of the IOL surface resulted.

26

Water Meniscus Air Water Air

Water Meniscus Water

Figure 6.1. Examples of the lensing effect of the water meniscus. Shown is a converging beam (left) and diverging beam (right). The water was modelled as having a refractive index of 1.33.

Due to time constraints, it was not possible to obtain a faster objective of such quality as the Lens 15/43. Without availability of a faster beam, measurements of IOL surface deviation were limited to only a small portion in the central region of the surface. It is important to note that the Zernike polynomials are orthogonal on the unit circle. Hence, when describing particular surfaces, they are meaningful only when used across the same physical size across all surfaces i.e. they cannot be extrapolated to account for larger diameters. The particular problem associated with the small autocollimated measurement maps was that their Zernike coefficients were useful only for those small sizes. This therefore also rendered useless the larger high-quality double pass measurement maps. Moreover, the obtainment of high-quality measurement maps was hindered by distinctively low-contrast CCD interferograms. This lack in contrast was attributable to the low-intensity reflection from the water/IOL interface due to the small refractive index differential there. The amount of light reflected from the interface between two media can be calculated using the fresnel reflection coefficients for s and p polarised light, respectively [17]. It was attempted to improve the map acquisition performance by increasing the integration (or exposure) time of the CCD camera. However, increasing the exposure made the system more susceptible to error due to mechanical vibration. Note that these adverse effects also plagued the previously performed experimental measurements of surface deviation [18]. Consequently, it was decided to measure a dry IOL in air.

6.5

Metrology of Pharmacia (AMO) 17D IOL in Air

Initially, it was decided to attempt the wet measurements since it was anticipated that they would be hardest to perform, and indeed they were. Furthermore, as previously outlined, the Bausch & Lomb 21.5D IOL best matched the most commonly implanted 21D. However, measurement of an IOL submerged in water was not pivotal to the success of the experiment; measurement of a dry IOL would prove just as useful. The downside of dry IOL measurements in this case, however, was the fact that the best matched 17D did not very closely match the most commonly implanted 21D. This minor disadvantage could easily be overcome by simply acquiring a 21D IOL. However, such an IOL was not available at time of experimentation.

27

The high-quality measurement maps obtained, visible in Figure 5.3, Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5, owe to the relatively large refractive index differential at the air/IOL interface. Prior to measurement of the IOL, it was anticipated that a large amount of spherical aberration would be present in the confocal position. This would result in a possibly indeterminate exact null fringe condition, since spherical aberration serves to elongate the focal region into a paraxial and marginal focus. i.e. there is no single definite focal point. Thus, there would be a relatively large distance over which the confocal position could be defined. Fortunately, excessive spherical aberration was not observed and so the confocal position was relatively well-defined. It can also be argued that measurement of the dry IOL in air is not representative of the in situ environment. The IOL material may absorb some of the ocular fluid and in doing so, change its physical characteristics. However, an experiment previously performed by the author indicated that the IOLs physics characteristics did not change when submerged in water, even for extended periods. The minimal error values of all measured physical parameters also indicate that the technique was highly consistent, even for just four measurement trials. Thus, measurement in air was accordingly acceptable.

6.6

Zemax Ray-Tracing Analysis

It is clear from Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7 that the Zemax models faithfully recreated both the anterior and posterior IOL surface deviations. It is worth noting that the real apical thickness calculated in Zemax is not quoted with any error. This does not mean that the value was calculated with infinite uncertainty. Instead, the analysis of its error was simply omitted, since it was deemed unnecessary in this proofof-concept model. Its calculation would be performed by taking the error of the experimental apparent thickness and using Zemax to compute the corresponding error of the real thickness. After calculation of the real apical IOL thickness, the anterior and posterior surfaces were modelled to qualitatively determine the total wave aberration in transmission through this modelled IOL. Figure 5.8 illustrates the agreement of the experimental and modelled total wavefront errors. In comparing the two sets of data, some unexpected results were observed. In particular, the peak-to-valley (PV), root mean square (RMS) and spherical aberration errors of the modelled wavefront were considerably larger than the experimental wavefront errors. The following are proposed as the reasons for this discrepancy. Firstly, at the confocal position, it was initially assumed that light passed through the entire optic region to be retro-reflected from the mirror. However, it is assessed that this assumption is not correct. Edge effects at the optic periphery will cause any light rays passing through there to be diverted largely and so these rays will not be retro-reflected by the mirror; consequently, they do not form part of the interferogram. Thus, only a smaller region of the optic is represented by the confocal interferogram. When the diameters of the IOL surfaces were reduced in the Zemax model, the resultant PV, RMS and spherical aberration values were found to decrease accordingly, in closer agreement with the experimental wavefront. Secondly, the posterior IOL surface was found to be slightly aspheric. It was aspheric in the sense that it was difficult to obtain an exact null fringe condition at the autocollimated position. The observed effect was similar to a spherically aberrated wavefront focussing on an image plane, where the definite focal point is elongated between a paraxial and marginal focus. In this case, the null fringe condition was found to be elongated between a focal region for the paraxial rays and a focal region for the marginal rays. Therefore, a certain 28

error was present in the determination of the posterior radius of curvature. When the posterior radius of curvature was increased slightly to a value of 23.5mm, the modelled wavefront errors were found to more closely agree with the experimental values. Furthermore, as previously stated, the IOL was observed to exhibit less spherical aberration in double pass than was anticipated. Therefore, perhaps the IOL is designed for minimal induction of spherical aberration, with the internal lens material and aspheric surface acting to cancel it out. With the reduction in modelled lens diameter and increase in posterior radius of curvature, the modelled RMS surface error is within just 2.5% of the experimental value; thus the two are in relatively close agreement. At this initial proof-of-concept stage with many undetermined variables, it is impossible to ascertain as to what is causing the discrepancy between experiment and theory. If all variables were removed, then the discrepancy could in fact be directly attributed to internal lens inhomogeneities. However, without such removal of inherent variables, it is not possible to confidently determine the source of discrepancy.

29

7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of measuring double pass wave aberration in transmission through an IOL has been proven. This previously deemed impossible measurement is not only repeatable, but results obtained can be subsequently confirmed with software raytracing analysis. The particular success of this project was in the design and development of individual tip and tilt controls for the IOL and retro-reflective mirror. A whole gamut of IOL types can be characterised through measurement in the wet or dry. Measurement with the IOL submerged in water is not pivotal to experimental success; however, it is more representative of the in situ environment. With this in mind, further work performed in this area would employ balanced salt solution (BSS) as the submersion liquid. The software confirmation of dry experimental measurements has been performed. Particular care must be taken in future work to better determine the extent to which the objective beam covers the IOL in both confocal and autocollimated measurements. It was observed that incorrectly large coverage assumptions are highly erroneous. As for wet measurements, it is clear that future success will necessitate the use of a faster high-quality objective beam. Only then will the surfaces of higher-powered IOLs be completely covered at the autocollimated position. Finally, with future successful elimination of variables, the discrepancy between experimentally and theoretically determined wavefront errrors can be attributed to internal IOL material inhomogeneity.

30

8. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the expert advice and consultation of Dr. Alexander Goncharov and the consultation of Matt Sheehan. Worthy of acknowledgement also is the time spent bouncing physics trivia off my good friends Adam Beatty, Colm Lynch, Marieke van der Putten and other classmates over the occasional pint of Guinness. In addition, to my brother Brian who tirelessly proof reads all my documents. Without them, I would scarcely have survived.

9. References
[1] Bausch & Lomb MICS Platform IOL Inheriting the best. Available at: http://millennium.micsplatform.com/mics-iol_inheriting_EN.php. (Accessed: 20 March 2012). [2] Goncharov, A. V. (2012) Personal communication. [3] 1. R. Bellucci, S. Morselli, and P. Piers. (2004) Comparison of wavefront aberrations and optical quality of eyes implanted with five different intraocular lenses, J. Refract. Surg. Vol. 20, pp. 297-306. [4] Pierscionek, B., Green, R. J. and Dolgobrodov, S. G. (2002) Retinal images seen through a cataracteous lens modelled as a phase-aberrating screen. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 19, pp. 1491-1500. [5] E. Goodwin and J. Wyant (2006) Field guide to Interferometric Optical Testing. SPIE press. Chapter 1, page 2. [6] E. Goodwin and J. Wyant (2006) Field guide to Interferometric Optical Testing. SPIE press. Chapter 3, page 24. [7] Zernike, F. (1934) "Beugungstheorie des Schneidenverfahrens und seiner verbesserten Form, der Phasenkontrastmethode". Physica 1, p. 689. [8] Davison, J.A. Endothelial cell damage, viscoelastics, anterior capsular tears, and sutureless closure. Available at: http://80.36.73.149/almacen/medicina/oftalmologia/ enciclopedias/duane/pages/v6/v6c011.html (Accessed: 22 March 2012). [9] Zemax user manual. p. 376. [10] Zemax user manual. p. 471. [11] Zemax user manual. p. 56. [12] FISBA Optik HR Interferometer user manual. Section 6.7.5.

31

[13] Thormhlen, I., Straub, J. And Grigull, U. (1985) Refractive index of water and its dependence on wavelength, temperature and density. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data. 14 (4). pp. 941-942. [14] Schiebener, P., Straub, J., Levelt Sengers, J. M. H. and Gallagher, J. S. (1990) Refractive index of water and steam as a function of wavelength, temperature and density. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data. 19 (3). p. 708. [15] Harvey, A. H., Gallagher, J. S. and Levelt Sengers, J. M. H. (1998) Revised formulation for the refractive index of water and steam as a function of wavelength, temperature and density. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data. 27 (4). p. 773. [16] Hecht, E. (2002) Optics (4th ed.). Addison Wesley. Chapter 4. p101. [17] Hecht, E. (2002) Optics. 4ed. Addison Wesley. Chapter 4. [18] Sheehan, M. (2012). Private communication.

32