A Comparative Study of Two Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses

[Optical benchtop evaluation of special intraocular lens optics]

Intraocular lenses (IOL) featuring complex optical designs can pose a challenge in understanding their performance, which may hinder making an informed decision when selecting suitable lenses for patients. This underlines the importance of collecting optical quality data of IOLs and making them available. The deployment of benchtop systems for IOL testing offers not only insights into the design features of various IOL solutions but also provides a platform for objective comparisons of special optics designs, including information about their susceptibility to photic phenomena. Recent advances in IOL testing have improved the ability to predict functional effects on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity from objective optical quality metrics. This, for instance, can be used to study monofocal lenses and the impact of asphericity on vision and IOLs tolerance to misalignment. Monofocal-plus IOLs consistently show only a slight improvement in the depth of focus when tested on the optical bench and in clinical settings. Although the pupil dependence found in this technology may limit the advantages of monofocal-plus over standard monofocal technology to extend the range of vision, it is the key to reduce photic phenomena. Refractive and diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs can effectively enhance intermediate vision, with the latter offering a slightly broader depth of focus but potentially increasing the risk of dysphotopsia. However, the limitation of EDOF IOLs is that they often fail to deliver spectacle independence for reading, which can be overcome by trifocal technology. Still, the available trifocal IOLs differ in their location of intermediate and near foci and the susceptibility to produce glare effects. Therefore, the knowledge from optical benchtop testing of IOLs can support optimizing the IOL selection by aligning the patient's visual needs with the IOL's properties, setting the right expectations, and assessing the risk profile for the occurrence of photic phenomena, potentially leading to improved decision-making.

Clinical Outcomes after Bilateral Implantation of a Wavefront-Shaping Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) IOL with Mini-Monovision

Background: To compare the visual outcomes and optical quality of patients who underwent bilateral implantation of EDOF (AcrySof® IQ Vivity IOL, DFT015) for mini-monovision, trifocal (AcrySof® IQ PanOptix, TNFT00), or monofocal (AcrySof® IQ IOL, SN60WF) IOL. Methods: The monocular-corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuities (CDVA and UDVA, respectively) were evaluated postoperatively at 1 and 3 months. The binocular visual acuity by distance, the binocular defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction were examined 3 months postoperatively. All patients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their satisfaction, visual symptoms, and spectacle dependency. Results: This study included 178 eyes from 89 patients. The postoperative binocular UDVA did not differ significantly among the three groups. In the defocus curve, the Vivity group showed better visual acuity over a range of far and intermediate (60 cm) than the other two IOLs groups. In near-vision, the PanOptix group showed the best near-vision, and the Vivity group showed significantly better vision than the IQ group. The Vivity group showed contrast sensitivity and optical quality comparable to the IQ group. Conclusions: The bilateral implantation of AcrySof® IQ Vivity IOL with the mini-monovision approach provided excellent distance and intermediate visual acuity with good near-vision, resulting in high satisfaction.

A comparative study of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses combining bifocal and extended depth-of-focus profiles

OBJECTIVE

To compare the visual performance of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) that combine both bifocal and extended depth-of-focus profiles, Artis® Symbiose® Plus (Symbiose Plus; Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) and Tecnis® Synergy® (Synergy; Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA).

METHODS

The medical records of patients with cataract bilaterally implanted with either Symbiose Plus or Synergy between January 2022 and January 2023 were assessed. The principal measures of postoperative findings included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near (40 and 33 cm) visual acuity (UNVA), objective optical quality (OOQ) parameters, distance-corrected defocus curve analysis, and surveys of subjective satisfaction.

RESULTS

Total of 96 eyes from 48 patients were enrolled. Each group was equally composed of 24 patients, 48 eyes. There were no significant differences between the two groups on baseline characteristics. Both IOLs displayed excellent binocular UDVA, CDVA, and UNVA (40 and 33 cm) with no statistical difference (p = 0.467(UDVA), p = 0.584(CDVA), p = 0.096(40-cm UNVA), and p = 0.621(33-cm UNVA)). However, with regard to UIVA, the Synergy group showed significantly superior results (p < 0.001). In contrast, the Symbiose Plus group showed significantly better results on OOQ parameters and patient-reported quality of vision survey outcomes (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both IOLs provided a decent continuous range of vision from near to far distance.