Clinical Outcomes With a New Continuous Range of Vision Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lens

Clinical outcomes of a toric continuous range of vision presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of the toric version of a presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) based on the combination of a diffractive-based extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) pattern and a diffractive multifocal platform.

SETTING

Miranza COI Bilbao, Bilbao, Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

35 patients (51 to 84 years) with corneal astigmatism ranging from 0.75 to 2.19 diopters (D) undergoing bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of the Synergy Toric II IOL were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up. Visual acuity, refraction, defocus curve, and patient-reported outcomes with the Catquest-9SF questionnaire were analyzed. A vectorial analysis was used to analyze the accuracy of astigmatic correction.

RESULTS

Mean 3-month monocular postoperative uncorrected distance, intermediate (80 cm) and near (40 cm) visual acuities were 0.06 ± 0.11 logMAR, 0.13 ± 0.12 logMAR, and 0.13 ± 0.09 logMAR, respectively. Mean monocular distance-corrected intermediate (80 cm) and near visual acuity (40 cm) were 0.11 ± 0.12 logMAR and 0.10 ± 0.10 logMAR, respectively. Mean binocular defocus curve showed visual acuities of 0.10 logMAR or better for defocus levels from +0.50 to -2.50 D. Residual cylinder was within ±0.50 D in 97.0% of eyes. The surgically induced astigmatism prediction error ranged between -0.49 D and 0.50 D, with a mean value of 0.04 ± 0.16 D. Mean absolute IOL rotation was 3.79 ± 2.94 degrees. Significant improvements were found in all Rasch-calibrated scores obtained with Catquest-9SF ( P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of the toric presbyopia-correcting IOL evaluated provides an efficacious astigmatic correction while providing a fully restoration of the visual function across different distances.

Clinical performance after implantation of an EDOF intraocular lens in the dominant eye and a presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens in the nondominant eye

PURPOSE

To evaluate subjective and objective outcomes after combined implantation of an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a combined technology multifocal lens (CT-IOL).

SETTING

2 clinical practices (Carolina Eyecare Physicians, Center For Sight) in the United States.

DESIGN

Prospective, unmasked, multicenter, nonrandomized bilateral eye study.

METHODS

Patients interested in reducing their dependence on spectacles were implanted with an EDOF IOL in the dominant eye and a CT-IOL in the nondominant eye. Refractive and visual acuity (VA) data at various distances (4 m, 66 cm, 40 cm, and 33 cm) were collected 3 months postsurgery, along with the distance-corrected binocular defocus curve and responses to questionnaires related to spectacle independence, visual disturbances, and overall visual function.

RESULTS

Data from 37 participants were analyzed. The distance-corrected binocular defocus curve showed a mean VA better than 0.1 logMAR (20/25) at all vergences from +1.00 to -2.50 diopters (D). 36 participants (97%) had an uncorrected binocular VA of 0.3 logMAR or better, at all test distances. 70% of participants (26/37) reported never wearing spectacles at any distance, and 84% (31/37) were "completely" or "mostly" satisfied with their overall vision after surgery. Halos were the disturbance reported most frequently and reported as most bothersome, with difficulty driving at night the most common visual function issue. Difficulty reading was the next most reported issue. Overall eyesight was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 92% (34/37) of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This combined EDOF/CT-IOL approach was well-tolerated by participants and provided some potential benefits relative to bilateral implantation of either lens.

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Epidemiology and impact

The global all-ages prevalence of epidemiologically-measured 'functional' presbyopia was estimated at 24.9% in 2015, affecting 1.8 billion people. This prevalence was projected to stabilise at 24.1% in 2030 due to increasing myopia, but to affect more people (2.1 billion) due to population dynamics. Factors affecting the prevalence of presbyopia include age, geographic location, urban versus rural location, sex, and, to a lesser extent, socioeconomic status, literacy and education, health literacy and inequality. Risk factors for early onset of presbyopia included environmental factors, nutrition, near demands, refractive error, accommodative dysfunction, medications, certain health conditions and sleep. Presbyopia was found to impact on quality-of-life, in particular quality of vision, labour force participation, work productivity and financial burden, mental health, social wellbeing and physical health. Current understanding makes it clear that presbyopia is a very common age-related condition that has significant impacts on both patient-reported outcome measures and economics. However, there are complexities in defining presbyopia for epidemiological and impact studies. Standardisation of definitions will assist future synthesis, pattern analysis and sense-making between studies.

Comparison of Distance-Based Uncorrected Visual Acuity Based on the Optical Profile of Same Platform IOLs

Purpose

To compare and evaluate uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) from far to near distance for four different optical designs of intraocular lenses (IOLs), developed on the same IOL platform.

Patients and Methods

In a cohort of 121 patients, who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery in Zengyo Suzuki Eye Clinic, Japan, between June 2018 and November 2023, and who received a single-piece TECNIS OptiBlue™ platform series IOL, the following four groups were established based on the IOL implant type: ZCB00V (TE), ZXR00V (SF), DFR00V (SG), and DIB00V (EH). UCVA at 5 m, 1 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, 40 cm, and 30 cm, as well as contrast sensitivity (with and without glare), was compared at one month post-operation.

Results

Regarding diffractive IOLs, patients in the SG group demonstrated significantly improved visual acuity at 5 m, 50 cm, 40 cm, and 30 cm, while those in SF group performed significantly better at 1 m. Among non-diffractive IOLs, patients in the EH group demonstrated significantly improved visual acuity scores at 1 m, 70 cm, 40 cm, and 30 cm, compared to individuals in the TE group, with comparable results between the two groups at 5 m and 50 cm. Patients in the SF and EH groups achieved similar results for visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, while those in the SG group exhibited a distinctive decrease in contrast sensitivity (with glare) relative to the other three groups.

Conclusion

DFR00V seemingly provides excellent UCVA from near to far distances, aiming for spectacle independence, although at the potential cost of decreased contrast sensitivity compared to the other three IOL types. Furthermore, although ZXR00V and DIB00V differ lens structures, they may nonetheless provide similar visual quality and spectacle independence in daily life.

Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes of Two Toric Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of two toric presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

Non-randomized prospective comparative study including 86 eyes of 51 patients (age 43-83 years) that underwent cataract surgery with implantation of one of the following two IOLs: TECNIS Toric Synergy (Johnson & Johnson Vision) (Synergy group) or AT LISA tri toric 939MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec) (ATLISA group). Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated during a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

At 6 months after surgery, all eyes achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity 20/25 or better in both groups, whereas 96.2% and 100% of eyes achieved uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) 20/25 or better in the ATLISA and Synergy groups, respectively. All eyes achieved postoperative mesopic UNVA 20/30 or better in both IOL groups; 96.2% and 100% of eyes had a manifest cylinder ≤ 0.50 D at 6 months in ATLISA and Synergy groups, respectively. Mean magnitude of error was 0.04 ± 0.20 and - 0.04 ± 0.09 D in ATLISA and Synergy groups, respectively (p = 0.05). In the defocus curve, significant differences were found between IOL groups for most of distance-corrected visual acuities, except those corresponding to defocus of 0 D (p = 0.268) and - 1 D (p = 0.361).

CONCLUSIONS

The two toric presbyopia-correcting IOLs evaluated provide an efficacious astigmatic correction combined with a successful distance, intermediate and near visual rehabilitation. The visual performance seems to be better for most visual demands with the TECNIS Toric Synergy IOL, especially for distances closer than 40 cm.

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.

Patient Perception and Self-Reported Outcomes with Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses (PCIOLs): A Social Media Listening Study

INTRODUCTION

Presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (PCIOL) implantation is a popular treatment option for cataract surgery patients who desire spectacle independence. This study aimed to understand patient perception and outcomes with PCIOLs by analyzing patient social media posts.

METHODS

This was a non-interventional retrospective study that used predefined search strings to identify publicly available social media data discussing patient perceptions and outcomes with seven PCIOLs (three trifocal, one multifocal with continuous range of vision, and three extended depth-of-focus [EDOF] PCIOLs). Relevant posts were searched from Reddit, YouTube, and Facebook and patient forums Patient.info, Medicine.net, Optiker-Forum, and Medizin Forum from September 2020 to October 2022 in four languages (English, German, French, and Spanish).

RESULTS

A total of 2237 posts were included, all in English, with 68% of posts identified on Patient.info. The themes most discussed by patients were quality of vision (69% of total posts), patient experience after PCIOL implantation (30%), patient perception before PCIOL implantation (26%), and visual disturbances (24%). Most discussed PCIOLs were Vivity® (58% of total posts), PanOptix® (38%), Synergy® (26%), and Symfony® (13%). Patient perception of PCIOLs was most frequently influenced by healthcare professionals, online reading, and online videos (31%, 18%, and 15% of posts, respectively). A total of 215 posts (10% of total) discussed glasses use after PCIOL surgery: for EDOF and trifocal/multifocal PCIOLs, 37% and 56% of posts discussing glasses use stated being glasses free, respectively. A total of 537 posts discussed visual disturbances: halos/rings (66%) and starbursts (36%) were the most discussed visual disturbances for all lens types. Being glasses free after PCIOL implantation appeared to be a key driver of patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Social media provides a rich source of information on patient perception, experience, and overall satisfaction of PCIOLs that can be used to complement and guide the collection of further evidence generated through controlled trials.

Comparison of the optical behaviour of five different multifocal diffractive intraocular lenses in a model eye

The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the optical performance of five trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) following the ISO 11979-2 standards, analysing the impact of tilt and decentration. Five different diffractive trifocal IOLs were evaluated in this experimental study: Acriva Trinova (VSY-Biotechnology) (AT), FineVision HP (PhysIOL) (FVHP), AT LISA tri 839 MP (Zeiss) (ATLT), PanOptix TFNT00 IOL (Alcon) (PO), and Tecnis Synergy (J&J Vision) (TS). In-vitro optical quality analysis of them was performed with the Lambda PMTF system that has an aberration neutral cornea model (Lambda-X Ophthalmics). Measurements were performed on-axis, with 5º of IOL tilt and with 0.5 mm of IOL decentration using 543-nm monochromatic light. Finally, IOL dimensions and diffractive disk profile inspection was performed using the VisIOLA system (Rotlex). On-axis measurements showed a far through-focus MTF > 0.3 at 3 mm aperture, except for TS. FVHP and PO showed better far MTFs for larger apertures (3.75 mm and 4.5 mm) while AT showed good intermediate and near vision for such apertures. With 5º of IOL tilt, the better optical performance at all distances was found with AT for medium-sized pupils (3 mm) and an important reduction of MTF was found for ATLT and PO, especially in the intermediate focus. The induction of 0.5 mm of IOL decentration especially affected the intermediate focus of ATLT and TS and the far focus of FVHP and PO. IOL dimensions and diffractive profile were consistent with those described by the manufacturer. In conclusion, there are differences in the optical performance according to the pupil aperture of the five trifocal IOLs evaluated and this should be considered in clinical practice when selecting the most appropriate implant in each specific case. IOL tilt and decentration can affect significantly in most of the designs evaluated the performance of the IOL at intermediate vision range. It should be noted that measurements were made with an aberration-free cornea, being necessary future studies analysing the impact of different levels of corneal aberrations.

Functional outcomes after bilateral refractive lens exchange with a continuous-range-of-vision intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To clinically evaluate a diffractive continuous-range-of-vision intraocular lens (IOL) that combines bifocal and extended depth-of-focus technologies in refractive lens exchange (RLE) patients.

SETTING

University eye clinic.

DESIGN

Prospective interventional clinical study.

METHODS

Bilateral implantation of the TECNIS Synergy IOL was performed during a RLE procedure in 28 patients. At 3 months postoperatively, uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected (UIVA) and distance-corrected (DCIVA) intermediate visual acuities at 80 cm, and uncorrected (UNVA) and distance-corrected (DCNVA) near visual acuities at 40 cm were assessed. Defocus curve testing and contrast sensitivity testing were also performed.

RESULTS

Binocular UDVA and CDVA of 56 eyes (28 patients) were -0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR and -0.13 ± 0.05 logMAR, respectively. UIVA and DCIVA were -0.06 ± 0.05 logMAR and -0.08 ± 0.06 logMAR, and UNVA and DCNVA were -0.01 ± 0.07 logMAR and -0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR. The defocus curve revealed a visual acuity of 0.10 logMAR or better from +0.50 to -3.00 diopters (D). Photopic contrast sensitivity at spatial frequencies 3.0, 6.0, 12.0, and 18.0 was 1.68 ± 0.20, 1.77 ± 0.19, 1.45 ± 0.18, and 1.02 ± 0.19 log units, respectively. Mesopic contrast sensitivity at the same frequencies was 1.56 ± 0.20, 1.44 ± 0.25, 0.92 ± 0.38, and 0.44 ± 0.37, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Synergy IOL provided very good distance, intermediate, and near visual outcomes. A visual acuity of 0.10 logMAR or better was achieved from +0.50 to -3.0 D. Contrast sensitivity was within the normal range.

Visual Outcomes, Quality of Vision, Patient Satisfaction and Spectacle Independence After Bilateral Implantation of the Synergy™ Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To evaluate vision, visual quality, patient satisfaction and spectacle independence after bilateral implantation of the TECNIS Synergy™ intraocular lens.

Setting

Two clinical practices in the USA.

Design

Ambispective unmasked non-randomized clinical trial.

Methods

Patients with a history of uneventful bilateral femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery with the study IOL implanted, targeted for emmetropia, at least 3 months prior to the study visit were enrolled. Monocular and binocular visual acuity (VA) were measured at distance, intermediate and near, along with binocular mesopic VA. Low contrast binocular VA and reading speed in mesopic and photopic conditions were also measured. Patient satisfaction, spectacle independence, visual symptoms, and functional vision questionnaires were completed.

Results

Results from 52 subjects were available for analysis. Mean binocular unaided visual acuity was ~0.1 logMAR (20/20) from distance to 33 cm, with 81% of subjects having 0.2 logMAR (20/25) vision or better at all test distances and 92% reporting never needing glasses at any distance. Average reading speed at 40 cm was only 10 words/minute slower in dim light (p = 0.03). Mesopic and low contrast acuity appeared good. Halos were the most frequent and bothersome visual disturbances, with the greatest effect on driving at night. Eighty-eight percent of subjects reported being "completely" or "mostly" satisfied with their overall unaided vision.

Conclusion

This hybrid technology IOL provided a range of binocular visual acuity from distance to 33 cm and good functional vision, even in dim light. Patients should be advised of the likelihood of visual disturbances, particularly halos.

Reversible Multifocality Achieved Through Polypseudophakia

Simultaneous implantation of a monofocal or monofocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) into the capsular bag and a multifocal IOL into the ciliary sulcus, referred to as duet procedure, allows us to create multifocality that is more easily reversible than the implantation of a capsular bag-fixated multifocal IOL. The optical quality and results after the duet procedure are equivalent to those of a capsular bag-fixated multifocal IOL. Patients who cannot tolerate the side effects of multifocal optics or who develop an ocular condition leading to loss of function such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or glaucoma in the course of their lives may benefit from the reversibility of the procedure.

Automated and subjective refraction with monofocal, multifocal, and EDOF intraocular lenses: review

Automated refraction (Scheiner principle) is universally used to start a visual examination. Although the results are reliable in eyes implanted with monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), they may be less precise with multifocal (mIOL) or extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs and can even indicate a refractive error that does not clinically exist. Autorefractor results with monofocal, multifocal, and EDOF IOLs were investigated through literature search analyzing the papers reporting the difference between automated and clinical refraction. The average difference ranged between -0.50 diopter (D) and -1.00 D with most mIOL and EDOF IOLs. The differences in astigmatism were generally much lower. Autorefractors using infrared light cannot measure eyes with high technology IOLs precisely because of the influence of the refractive or of the diffractive near add. The systematic error induced with some IOLs should be mentioned in the IOL label to prevent possible inappropriate refractive procedures to treat apparent myopia.

Trifocal Intraocular Lens Selection: Predicting Visual Function From Optical Quality Measurements

PURPOSE

To apply in vitro quality metrics to assess and compare three trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

The optical performance of the AT LISA tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG), AcrySof IQ PanOptix (Alcon Laboratories, Inc), and TECNIS Synergy (Johnson & Johnson Vision) was compared. The modulation transfer function (MTF) metrics were obtained using an optical bench set-up. A polychromatic light source and a model cornea inducing chromatic and spherical aberrations were used to mimic in vivo characteristics. The area under the MTF was calculated at each defocus position, which served as a parameter in a nonlinear formula applied to predict postoperative visual acuity (VA).

RESULTS

All of the studied IOLs had a predicted VA of 0.2 logMAR or better throughout the range of 0.00 to -3.00 diopters (D). Simulated VA differences between the IOLs were negligible (< 0.01 logMAR) at the far point. Although the three models were comparable at -1.00 D, at -2.00 D the AT LISA tri 839MP's VA was 0.06 and 0.08 logMAR worse than with the TECNIS Synergy and AcrySof IQ PanOptix, respectively. At near focus, the AcrySof IQ PanOptix's estimated VA was 0.06 logMAR (40 cm); for the AT LISA tri 839MP and TECNIS Synergy, it was 0.06 and 0.03 logMAR, respectively, at 36 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Although simulated distance VA was comparable between the studied models, differences can be found in the intermediate focus' position and quality and the expected reading distance. Therefore, simulations of defocus curves from optical quality metrics provide insight into IOL characteristics and highlight differences between the IOLs, which may guide the selection of a trifocal lens based on patients' needs. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(2):111-118.].

Latest Development in Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: An Update

In recent years, there has been an overwhelming influx of different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs) as treatment for presbyopia. The extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) technology creates a single elongated focal point to enhance depth of focus, in contrast to the multiple foci of multifocal (MF) lenses. In this way, the EDOF lenses aim to reduce photic phenomena, glare, and halos, which have been reported in MF IOLs. A potential disadvantage of this is a blur due to decreased retinal image quality when the amount of the aberrations is increased excessively. Multifocality and EDOF characteristics are not exclusive of each other. Frequently, EDOF IOLs are combined with MF optical designs, a bifocal IOL may exhibit EDOF characteristics, likewise an aspheric monofocal IOL or a diffractive or refractive trifocal IOL. Thus, EDOF lenses are commonly subjected to confusion. A wide range of different types of EDOF lenses are available on the market to surgeons. In this practical update, we aim to clarify what is a true EDOF lens, classify the different types of the EDOF lenses based on their optical principle and review their recently reported outcomes. Comprehensive patient examination and selection, combined with knowledge of the most updated options and adequate patient counseling, can avoid dissatisfaction and yield the desired outcomes.

Comparative Visual Outcome Analysis of a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens and a New Diffractive Multifocal Lens with Extended Depth of Focus

This study compares the visual and refractive performance of the TECNIS Synergy (DFR00V-DFW150-225-300-375) multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and the AcrySof IQ PanOptix (TFAT00-30-40-50-60) multifocal IOL. Patients who underwent phacoemulsification and cataract extraction and received either a multifocal Synergy or PanOptix IOL were included. Monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), near (UNVA), and corrected distance (CDVA) visual acuities were assessed at three and six months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures of photic phenomena were also assessed. A total of 140 patients (224 eyes) were included in this study, with 69 patients (105 eyes) in the Synergy group and 71 patients (119 eyes) in the PanOptix group. There were no statistically significant differences in UIVA or CDVA measurements across all time points. When assessing UDVA, at three months postoperatively, there were more eyes in the PanOptix group with vision better than 20/40 (p = 0.04). At three and six months postoperatively, the average UNVA was superior in the Synergy group (p = 0.01, 0.002). While the Synergy group reported more night vision disturbances at one and three months (p = 0.01, 0.03), the PanOptix group had more night vision disturbances at six months (p = 0.02). Although not statistically significant, the AcrySof IQ PanOptix multifocal IOL demonstrated better UDVA and UIVA sooner postoperatively than the TECNIS Synergy multifocal IOL. The Synergy IOL provided statistically better UNVA compared to the PanOptix IOL at three and six months postoperatively. Synergy patients reported more early photic phenomena than PanOptix patients, which later diminished.

Comparative analysis of a presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens that combines extended depth-of-focus and bifocal profiles with a standard monofocal intraocular lens

Background

Recently, a new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) that combines extended depth-of-focus and bifocal profiles (ZFR00: Tecnis® Synergy®, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) has been established and several studies have been reported. We attempted to compare the performance with a standard IOL (ZCB00: Tecnis® monofocal, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) manufactured using the same material from the same company, which has been extensively used worldwide.

Methods

The medical records of patients undergoing cataract surgery with ZCB00 or ZFR00 implantation between March 2021 and September 2021 and with available 3-month visit data were reviewed. Uncorrected near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity (VA), corrected distance VA, and optical quality were the main outcome measures.

Results

This study included forty-six patients (64 eyes), with twenty-one patients (32 eyes) implanted with ZCB00 and twenty-five patients (32 eyes) implanted with ZFR00. The average age of the patients was 66.0 ± 10.1 (range: 40 to 82) and 65.1 ± 4.7 (range: 59 to 77) years in the ZCB00 and ZFR00 groups, respectively. The preoperative characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Compared to the ZCB00 group, the ZFR00 group demonstrated significantly superior intermediate and near VA (p < 0.001) at 3 months postoperatively. The ZFR00 group showed significantly lower objective measured optical quality than that in the ZCB00 group.

Conclusions

The ZFR00 exhibited a continuous range of vision and a smooth defocus curve, while the ZCB00 provided superior objective optical quality.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12886-022-02516-6.

Analysis and comparison of monofocal, extended depth of focus and trifocal intraocular lens profiles

To test the feasibility of using profilometers to extract information about IOL surfaces design. A standard monofocal IOL (Tecnis 1), a monofocal IOL that provided some depth of focus (Eyhance), an extended depth of focus IOL based on refractive optics (Mini Well) and a trifocal IOL based on diffractive optics were used in this study (Tecnis Synergy). The surface topography of the IOLs was measured by using a multimode optical profilometer. Posterior surface of Tecnis 1 IOL was spherical and the anterior surface aspherical. In the Eyhance IOL, posterior surface was spherical and anterior surface did not fit to any of our reference surfaces, indicating a higher order aspheric surface design. In the Mini Well Ready IOL, a best-fit sphere surface was obtained for the second surface and a high order aspherical surface design was deduced for the first surface. The anterior surface of the Synergy IOL was aspherical and the base curve of the diffractive structure fitted very well to a spherical surface. To consider an aspheric surface as possible best-fit surface provided more information than if only best-fit spherical surface was considered. The high order aspheric surface designs employed in the IOLs studied presented differences, regarding best-fit asphere surface, higher than 1 micron. These differences were correlated with the generation of spherical aberration complex profiles (with Zernike terms higher than 4th order) and with the production of distinct amounts of depth of focus. This method was also useful to deduce the base curve of diffractive surfaces.

Comparison of visual results and optical quality of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: TECNIS symfony versus TECNIS synergy

PURPOSE

This study compared the extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) (ZXR00; Tecnis® Symfony^®, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) and a new presbyopia-correcting IOL that combines EDOF and multifocal profiles (ZFR00; Tecnis^® Synergy^®, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) with the same material.

METHODS

The medical records of patients undergoing cataract surgery with ZXR00 or ZFR00 implantation between March 2021 and July 2021 and with the data available for the 3-month visit were reviewed. The uncorrected near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity (VA), corrected distance VA, defocus curves, refractive errors (RE), optical quality parameters, and patient-reported visual performance parameters were the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

Among the twenty-three enrolled patients, twelve patients (21 eyes) received ZXR00 and nine patients (17 eyes) received ZFR00. The mean age of the patients was 59.6 ± 10.6 (range: 49 to 70) and 65.2 ± 8.2 (range: 45 to 82) years in ZXR00 and ZFR00 groups, respectively, without significant difference. There was not a significant difference between the two groups in terms of baseline parameters and postoperative RE. The ZFR00 group showed markedly superior intermediate and near VA (p < 0.001 for all) at 3 months postoperatively. In terms of optical quality, ZXR00 was significantly better than ZFR00 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both IOLs had comparable distance VA. ZFR00 IOL was superior for intermediate and near visual acuity, but ZXR00 IOL was better for optical quality. Research with more participants is needed to support this finding.

Visual acuity, defocus curve and patient satisfaction of a new hybrid EDOF-multifocal diffractive intraocular lens

Purpose: To evaluate the visual acuity, defocus curve and visual quality of life following bilateral implantation of a new hybrid extended depth of focus (EDOF)-multifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). Methods: Patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of Tecnis Synergy IOL were enrolled in this study. The main outcomes were defined as uncorrected distant, intermediate and near visual acuities (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA, respectively), defocus curve and VF-14 questionnaire aimed for visual performance. Results: The mean ± SD values for binocular UDVA, UIVA and UNVA were -0.01 ± 0.04, 0.05 ± 0.03 and 0.03 ± 0.05 logMAR, respectively. Defocus curve showed a continuous vision above 0.16 logMAR between +0.50 D and -2.50 D. Patients had good visual performance with mean VF-14 scores above 3 points. Driving at night (3.47 ± 0.64) was found to be the most difficult task to perform. Spectacle independence was 100% for both distant and near vision. Conclusion: Bilateral implantation of Tecnis Synergy IOL in cataract patients shows good visual acuity and performance, covering a good visual range without any need of spectacles.

COMPARISON OF REFRACTIVE AND VISUAL OUTCOMES OF THREE PRESBYOPIA-CORRECTING INTRAOCULAR LENSES

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of three different types of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal.

DESIGN

Prospective comparative case series.

METHODS

180 eyes of 90 patients undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery with implantation of one of these trifocal IOLs were enrolled: Tecnis Synergy (J&J Vision) (Synergy group, 30 patients), Acrysof PanOptix (Alcon) (PanOptix group, 30 patients), and POD F (PhysIOL) (Finevision group, 30 patients). The outcomes in terms of distance, intermediate and near visual acuity (VA), refraction, defocus curve, photic phenomena and spectacle independence were evaluated at 3-months follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between groups in monocular distance-corrected intermediate (Synergy 0.04±0.11, PanOptix 0.05±0.09, Finevision 0.08±0.10; p=0.107) and near VA (0.01±0.08, 0.01±0.06, 0.04±0.10; p=0.186). Likewise, no significant differences among groups were found in binocular uncorrected distance (p=0.572), near (p=0.929) and intermediate VA (p=0.327). In contrast, significant differences between groups were found in the visual acuity for the vergence demands of -0.50, -1.00, -2.00, -3.50 and -4.00 D (p≤0.045). No significant differences among groups were found either in the frequency, severity and bothersomeness of different disturbing visual symptoms, including glare and haloes (p≥0.129). More than 96% of patients in all groups did not require the use of spectacles at any distance after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The three trifocal IOLs evaluated provide an effective visual rehabilitation with minimal incidence of photic phenomena. A trend to obtain a wider range of functional focus was observed with the Tecnis Synergy IOL.