Evaluation of Different Power of Near Addition in Two Different Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

The Novel Optical Design and Clinical Classification of a Wavefront-Shaping Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical rationale of wavefront-shaping technology, describe how intraocular lenses (IOLs) using wavefront-shaping technology are differentiated from refractive or diffractive optical presbyopia-correcting designs, and describe the mode of action of this technology.

Methods

Extended depth of focus (EDoF) IOLs are the latest class of presbyopia-correcting IOLs addressing the growing demand of patients for reduced spectacle dependence. These use various optical technologies, including diffractive designs (eg, TECNIS Symfony ZXR00 and AT LARA 29 MP) and non-diffractive designs such as small aperture (eg, IC-8 IOL and XtraFocus Pinhole Implant), spherical aberration (eg, MINI WELL Ready and LuxSmart), and wavefront shaping (eg, AcrySof IQ Vivity DFT015 and Clareon Vivity CNWET0). Despite some improvement in visual acuity at intermediate and near distances, these technologies can still be associated with increased rate of visual disturbances or poorer distance vision compared with monofocal IOLs. One way to overcome such limitations is using a wavefront-shaping optical principle.

Results

Clinical data show that wavefront-shaping technology results in a continuous EDoF compared with a monofocal IOL while exhibiting a minimal halo, similar to an aspheric monofocal IOL. Clinically, this translates to a lens that has proven to exceed the American National Standards Institute/American Academy of Ophthalmology criteria for an EDoF IOL.

Conclusion

The novel wavefront-shaping optic technology allows patients to achieve a continuous range of vision from distance to functional near with low levels of visual disturbances comparable with aspheric monofocal IOLs.

Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs).

Methods

Three hundred twenty eyes (160 patients) underwent cataract surgery with randomized IOLs bilateral implantation. Changes in uncorrected and distance-corrected logMAR distance, intermediate and near (UNVA and DCNVA) visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), presence of dysphotopsia, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction were analyzed.

Results

Postoperative VA in the hybrid (OptiVis) group was improved in all distances (p < 0.001). OptiVis acted superiorly to monofocal IOLs in UNVA and DCNVA (p < 0.001 for both) and to refractive ones in DCNVA (p < 0.005). Distance, mesopic, without glare CS in OptiVis was lower than in the monofocal group and similar to other MFIOLs. No differences in dysphotopsia pre- and postoperatively and spectacle independence in near for OptiVis and refractive MFIOLs were detected. OptiVis patients were more satisfied than those with monofocal IOLs (p=0.015).

Conclusions

After cataract surgery, patients with OptiVis improved VA in all distances. Near and intermediate VA was better than monofocal, and DCNVA was better than the refractive group. CS was lower in OptiVis than in the monofocal group, but there was no difference between MFIOLs. Patient satisfaction was higher in OptiVis than in the monofocal group. This trial is registered with NCT03512626.