Visual Acuity, Wavefront Aberrations, and Defocus Curves With an Enhanced Monofocal and a Monofocal Intraocular Lens: A Prospective, Randomized Study

[Overview of intraocular lenses with optics for correcting presbyopia]

BACKGROUND

In recent years intraocular lenses (IOLs) for correcting presbyopia have been significantly improved and diversified. There are currently many different IOL models based on a wide variety of optical designs.

OBJECTIVE

The wide variety of available IOL solutions to correct presbyopia can be challenging for surgeons and patients. In everyday practice, the question is which IOL is best for which patient.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This overview describes and categorizes the currently available implants. The respective optical properties are analyzed and clinical study results are discussed, in particular those evaluating visual performance and the occurrence of photic phenomena.

RESULTS

Monofocal-plus IOLs provide improved intermediate visual acuity with optimal distant visual acuity and minimal photic phenomena. Extended depth of field (EDoF) IOLs extend the depth of field through different optical principles and provide good distant and intermediate visual acuity. Trifocal lenses enable the greatest independence from spectacles at the price of a higher probability of dysphotopsia.

CONCLUSION

The selection of the most suitable IOL for correction of presbyopia requires a balance between the patient's visual needs and possible side effects. An adequate knowledge of the currently available implants allows a patient-oriented selection of IOLs.

Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopia-correcting cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of various intraocular lenses (IOLs), including standard monofocal, bifocal, trifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), and enhanced monofocal IOLs, post-cataract surgery through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from the past 5 years. Parameters such as binocular visual acuities, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity (CS), and optical quality were used to evaluate efficacy and safety. Data from the selected studies were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17.0 software.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comprising 2465 subjects were included. Trifocal IOLs exhibited superior uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) compared to monofocal IOLs (MD: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.22). Both trifocal (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOLs group MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.06) and EDOF IOLs (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.17, -0.09) showed better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) than monofocal IOLs. Trifocal IOLs ranked highest in spectacle independence at various distances (AT LISAtri 839MP group: SUCRA 97.5% for distance, 80.7% for intermediate; AcrySof IQ PanOptix group: SUCRA 83.0% for near).

CONCLUSIONS

For cataract patients who want to treat presbyopia, trifocal IOLs demonstrated better visual acuity and spectacle independence at near distances. Different types of trifocal IOL characteristics differ. EDOF and enhanced monofocal IOLs have improved visual quality at intermediate distances.Therefore, It is very important to select the appropriate IOLs based on the lens characteristics and patient needs.

Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens: a single-masked prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the visual outcomes of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) with two different monofocal IOLs.

SETTING

Eye Clinic, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-center, single-masked, randomized controlled clinical study.

METHODS

The study included patients undergoing phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. Patients were consecutively randomized by block randomization and assigned in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio to three study arms to bilaterally receive Tecnis Eyhance™ (model ICB00) or Tecnis® monofocal 1-piece (model PCB00) or Clareon® monofocal (model CNA0T0), respectively. Monocular and binocular (both corrected and uncorrected) visual acuities for far, intermediate and near were registered and compared among groups at 3 months. To track changes in patient quality of life, the Catquest-9SF questionnaire was administered to each patient before and after cataract extraction.

RESULTS

Ninety patients (30 for each group) were enrolled. At 3 months follow-up, statistically significant differences for intermediate visual acuities were found between the three groups. Nonstatistically significant differences were observed for distance visual acuities and the changes in Catquest-9SF scores.

CONCLUSION

Tecnis Eyhance™ provided better results in intermediate visual outcomes without adverse effects on patients' quality of life.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Intermediate Vision of Two Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To compare intermediate visual outcomes in patients previously implanted with bilateral Clareon monofocal IOLs versus bilateral Eyhance IOLs.

Methods

This was a non-interventional, single-center, examiner-masked, comparative study. Participants were cataract patients presenting at least 3 months after uncomplicated, bilateral implantation of either Clareon or Eyhance non-toric and toric IOLs. Outcomes measures included binocular distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), binocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), binocular best-corrected defocus curve, postoperative mean residual spherical equivalent (MRSE), and residual astigmatism.

Results

A total of 620 eyes of 310 subjects (155 subjects per group) were evaluated. The mean difference in DCIVA was 0.05 logMAR between the Eyhance and Clareon IOLs which was significant (p < 0.01), but within the 0.1 logMAR non-inferiority margin. Mean CDVA of the Clareon group was 0.01 ± 0.03 logMAR compared to 0.02 ± 0.03 logMAR of the Eyhance Group (p > 0.05). Defocus curves from +1.0 D to -3.0 D were not clinically nor statistically different between the Clareon and Eyhance groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of this study show that bilateral implantation of Clareon monofocal IOLs and Eyhance monofocal IOLs lead to similar distance and intermediate visual outcomes.

Comparing Visual Performance and Subjective Outcomes with an Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lens When Targeted for Emmetropia or Monovision

Purpose

To evaluate relative visual performance and subjective outcomes after implantation of the TECNIS Eyhance™ intraocular lens (IOL) targeted for bilateral emmetropia or monovision.

Methods

This was a prospective, single-center randomized, patient-masked trial. Patients were implanted with the enhanced IOL targeted for bilateral emmetropia or slight monovision (-0.75 D in the non-dominant eye). At 3 months the binocular visual acuity (VA) was measured at distance, intermediate and near, along with low contrast VA in photopic and mesopic conditions, and the distance corrected defocus curve. Questionnaires related to spectacle independence, satisfaction, visual symptoms, and functional vision were administered.

Results

Data from 71 subjects (34 Emmetropia, 37 Monovision) were analyzed. There was no difference in the mean uncorrected distance VA (p = 0.11), but uncorrected intermediate and near VAs were one line better in the Monovision group (p = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). Mesopic and photopic low contrast VA were similar between groups. There was a trend for less difficulty and higher satisfaction with near and intermediate vision in the Monovision group, but no significant differences in any of the subjective questionnaires. Difficulty reading was the most reported concern in both groups, though 93% of all subjects reported "little" or "no" difficulty with daily activities. Overall, 82% of subjects were "completely" or "very" happy with their lens choice.

Conclusion

Using this enhanced IOL with slight monovision in the non-dominant eye increased intermediate and near VA with no apparent effect on low contrast distance VA, subjective visual quality, or satisfaction.

Analysis of higher-order aberrations in relation to the clinical outcome of an enhanced monofocal IOL

PURPOSE

To analyse higher-order aberrations of an enhanced monofocal aspheric intraocular lens (IOL) in relation to the clinical outcome compared to a monofocal aspheric IOL.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective, monocentric, controlled, non-randomized, two-armed study.

METHODS

After phacoemulsification, a total of 30 patients (60 eyes) were bilaterally implanted with either TECNIS Eyhance IOL model ICB00 (Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc.) or TECNIS Monofocal 1-Piece IOL model ZCB00 (Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc.) in 30 eyes each. Assessments were performed 1 and 3 months after surgery including refraction, uncorrected and best-corrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, defocus curves, contrast sensitivities under photopic, mesopic and mesopic conditions with glare, higher-order aberrations (HOAs) at pupil sizes of 5, 4, 3 and 2 mm and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

At 3-month follow-up, measurements of HOAs revealed significant higher negative internal and ocular primary spherical aberrations in the ICB00 group at pupil sizes of 5, 4, 3 and 2 mm. The ICB00 showed significant better results in intermediate and near visual acuity, but no difference in distance visual acuity. No significant difference was found in contrast sensitivities at any condition or spatial frequency. Spectacle independence was significant better without significant higher rates of dysphotopsia in the ICB00 group.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher negative spherical aberrations in the ICB00 group at all measured pupil sizes appear to lead to a superior clinical outcome in intermediate and near vision compared to the ZCB00 group without compromising contrast sensitivity or distance visual acuity.

Clinical outcomes with an aspheric monofocal and a new enhanced monofocal intraocular lens with modified optical profile

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes obtained after cataract surgery with an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and an enhanced IOL with a modified optical profile.

METHODS

Randomised clinical trial enrolling 70 patients (age, 52-87 years) undergoing cataract surgery. Two groups were created according to the type of IOL implanted: Vivinex iSert from Hoya Surgical Optics (Vivinex group, 35 patients) and Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 from Johnson & Johnson Vision (Eyhance group, 35 patients). Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected (UIVA) and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), refraction, and self-perceived visual function (Catquest-9SF) were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between IOL groups in UDVA and CDVA (p ≥ 0.093). In contrast, monocular and binocular UIVA and DCIVA were significantly better in the Eyhance group at 1 (p ≤ 0.015) and 3 months postoperatively (p ≤ 0.002). Postoperative DCIVA 20/25 or better was obtained in 71.4% and 20.0% of patients in Eyhance and Vivinex groups, respectively. Differences in postoperative Rasch calibrated Catquest scores between Eyhance and Vivinex groups did not reach statistical significance (p ≥ 0.102). However, significant correlations were only found between the change in UIVA and Catquest scores (0.364 ≤ r ≤ 0.444, p ≤ 0.041) in the Eyhance group.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified monofocal IOL evaluated provides better intermediate visual function in comparison with a standard aspheric monofocal IOL, but the impact of this benefit on the self-perceived level of vision achieved after surgery according to the patient seemed to be limited.

Evaluation of Visual Outcomes and 3-Month Refractive Stability of a New Hydrophobic Acrylic Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To determine the refractive stability of a new hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) when implanted bilaterally.

Methods

This was a prospective, evaluator masked, single surgeon study of 58 eyes of 29 patients. Patients were bilaterally implanted with the Clareon monofocal IOL (CNA0T0, Alcon Vision LLC). Refractive stability was evaluated between 1 and 3 months postoperatively. At 3 months postoperatively, data were also collected for binocular uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuities at distance (4 m) and intermediate (80 cm and 66 cm) and binocular defocus curve.

Results

Postoperative refraction was statistically equivalent between 1 and 3 months postoperatively (p < 0.001). Mean postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was -0.01 ± 0.10 logMAR, and mean corrected distance visual acuity was -0.04 ± 0.06 logMAR. Mean postoperative uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was 0.16 ± 0.13 logMAR and 0.24 ± 0.14 logMAR at 80 cm and 66 cm, respectively. With distance correction in place, mean visual acuity at 80cm and 60cm was 0.16 ± 0.13 logMAR and 0.23 ± 0.14 logMAR, respectively.

Conclusion

The Clareon monofocal IOL can provide stable refraction, excellent distance vision, and functional intermediate vision postoperatively.

Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses: A Retrospective, Comparative Study between Three Different Models

The purpose of this study was to compare the visual performance and optical quality between three new enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). This retrospective study included patients affected by cataracts with corneal astigmatism less than 0.75 D and no ocular comorbidities who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, USA), Vivinex Impress XY1-EM (Hoya Surgical Optics, Singapore) or IsoPure 123 (PhysIOL, Liege, Belgium) IOLs. Three months postoperatively, monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distant, and intermediate and near visual acuities were measured. Binocular defocus curve, photopic contrast sensitivity, Point Spread Function (PSF), low order aberrations (LOAs), high order aberrations (HOAs), objective scatter index (OSI), halo and glare perception were also evaluated. This study included a total of 72 eyes from 36 patients. Visual acuity outcomes, PSF, LOAs, HOAs and OSI were similar between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of photopic contrast sensitivity, halo or glare perception. In patients without ocular comorbidities, the Eyhance ICB00 IOL, the Vivinex Impress IOL and the Isopure IOL-even though based on different optical properties-provided similar results in terms of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and intraocular aberrations, with no influence on photic phenomena.

Agreement between Two Devices for Measuring Pupil Diameter in Patients Implanted with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between three methods for measuring pupil size in patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs): Keratograph 5M (K5M), Pentacam AXL Wave (PW), and a simple hand ruler. Sixty-nine subjects implanted with MIOLs and measured at the three-month follow-up visit were included in this retrospective analysis. K5M and PW were used to measure the photopic (PP) and mesopic (MP) pupil sizes, and a hand ruler was used to measure the pupil under environmental light conditions (135 lux). The Bland-Altman method with its limits (LoAs) was used to assess the agreement. The median PP was 2.8, 2.95, and 3 mm for K5M, PW, and the ruler, respectively (p < 0.05). Differences in PP were statistically significant for all paired comparisons (p < 0.0005) except between PW and the ruler (p = 0.44). The LoAs for the difference in PP between K5M and PW was 0.63 mm. The mean difference for MP between K5M and PW was 0.04 mm (p = 0.34) with LoAs of 0.72 mm. MP measured with K5M and PW could be considered interchangeable, although a correction of -0.3 mm (IC95%: -0.23 to -0.39) should be applied to PP measured with PW to attain the K5M mean.

Clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of new generation monofocal IOL enhanced for intermediate distance and conventional monofocal IOL in a Korean population

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses (IOLs) and standard monofocal IOLs.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, comparative controlled study, we compared the visual outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery at the Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, with either enhanced monofocal IOLs (Tecnis Eyhance, ICB00, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Inc) (Group 1) or standard monofocal IOLs (Tecnis, ZCB00, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Inc) (Group 2). The assessment included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate (UIVA at 60 cm) and near (UNVA at 40 cm) visual acuity, uncorrected defocus curves, contrast sensitivity testing (CST), and reading speed test using Quality of vision was evaluated using the Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25).

RESULTS

At 3-months postoperatively, monocular and binocular outcomes of UIVA and UNVA were statistically significantly better in Group 1 (P < 0.05). The binocular uncorrected defocus curve of Group 1 showed statistically significantly better outcomes at vergence ranges of -1.5 to -4.0 D (P < 0.05). Significantly higher reading speed test was also observed in Group 1 in all ranges tested (1.0 to 0.1 LogMAR) (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in CST between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral implantation of enhanced monofocal IOLs provided better vision at intermediate and near distances compared to standard monofocal IOLs, while maintaining good distance vision and contrast sensitivity.

Positioning of enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses between conventional monofocal and extended depth of focus lenses: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

New intraocular lenses (IOLs) have emerged since the originally coined monofocal and multifocal IOLs. The extended depth of focus (EDoF) and enhanced monofocal IOLs (mono-EDoF) that have appeared in the last decade have caused some confusion in their classification. The aim of this review was to summarize the outcomes provided by mono-EDOF IOLs and to determine which of the endpoints, described by the American National Standard (ANSI) for EDoF IOLs, are fulfilled.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and data extraction. The search strategy was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, but not by language. The results are presented as a narrative summary accompanied by tables, in alignment with the objectives of this scoping review. Compliance with the endpoints for clinical outcomes described in the American National Standard Z80.35-2018 (ANSI) for EDoF lenses was checked and additional endpoints were defined.

RESULTS

Two systematic reviews, 13 laboratory, 21 clinical, and two mixed studies were included. Tecnis Eyhance was the mono-EDOF with the highest volume of evidence to date. Although laboratory studies included other IOLs, clinical evidence for them is still scarce, with only one study of IsoPure compared to a standard monofocal IOL. Evidence in comparison to EDoF lenses is also scarce, even for Tecnis Eyhance, with only three studies including this lens in comparison to an EDoF lens. After evaluation of the ANSI criteria, agreement was found in the failure for the increase in depth of field equal to or greater than 0.5 D for a visual acuity (VA) level of 0.2 logMAR and none of the studies supported that the median monocular VA at intermediate distance was at least 0.2 logMAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional clinical evidence is required for other mono-EDOF IOLs beyond Tecnis Eyhance. Until the arrival of a standard classification, mono-EDOF should be better still classified as monofocal because the ANSI standards were not fully met.

Evaluation of Postoperative Total Ocular Aberrations After Bilateral Implantation of Monofocal IOL with Extended Depth of Focus in Phacoemulsification

Purpose

To evaluate postoperative visual performance and total ocular aberration in cataract patients after implantation of the TECNIS Eyhance™ intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods

Our study is a prospective interventional non-comparative study that was conducted on 34 eyes of 17 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and Eyhance IOL implantation. Postoperative corrected and uncorrected near and far visual acuity and total ocular aberration were assessed 3 months after surgery.

Results

Our study included 34 eyes of 17 patients. At the third postoperative month, the mean spherical equivalent (SE) was -0.32 diopters (D) (SD ±0.62), and the mean distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) was 0.33 (SD ±0.15) and 0.42 (SD ±0.17) decimal notation (DN) monocular and binocular, respectively. The mean near distance with maximum visual acuity was 79.47 cm (SD ±7.70) and 74.76 cm (SD ±7.90) monocular and binocular, respectively. The mean postoperative minimum reading addition (add) was 1.6 D (SD ±0.47). The mean spherical aberration (SA) was 0.13 µm (SD ±0.09). The correlation of amount of spherical aberration with power of minimum reading add at 40 cm was not statistically significant (p=0.324).

Conclusion

The TECNIS Eyhance IOL provides good intermediate visual acuity and decreases the power of the reading add needed after phacoemulsification.

Enhanced Monofocal Versus Conventional Monofocal Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery: A Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare different outcomes of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) versus a conventional monofocal IOL implantation after cataract surgery.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline was used for abstracting data and assessing quality. Comparative studies between enhanced monofocal versus conventional monofocal IOL implantations reporting outcomes in monocular and binocular visual acuities at various distances, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity, optical quality, and adverse effects were identified from three databases. Meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 680 eyes implanted with an enhanced monofocal IOL (Tecnis Eyhance ICB00; Johnson & Johnson) and 647 eyes with a conventional monofocal IOL from 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 comparative studies were included. The enhanced monofocal IOL showed better monocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) (mean difference [MD]: -0.11 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.09), binocular UIVA (MD: -0.17 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.11), and binocular uncorrected near visual acuity performance (MD: -0.17 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.04) than the conventional monofocal IOL. More patients were spectacle free at intermediate distance with the enhanced monofocal IOL (odds ratio: 12.9; 95% CI: 6.2 to 27.0). Both monocular (MD: -0.002 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.01) and binocular (MD: 0.01 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.03) uncorrected distance visual acuity revealed non-significant differences between the IOL designs. Contrast sensitivity, photic phenomenon, and adverse effects were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced monofocal IOLs effectively improved unaided intermediate vision with similar distance performance relative to conventional monofocal IOLs. This was achieved without compromising the contrast sensitivity or inducing photic phenomena. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(8):538-546.].