Dataset Information

Vision and patient-reported outcomes with nondiffractive EDOF or neutral aspheric monofocal intraocular lenses.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare outcomes in patients who underwent cataract extraction with implantation of nondiffractive extended depth-of-focus (ND-EDOF; Alcon AcrySof Vivity) or neutral aspheric monofocal (Bausch & Lomb enVista) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Setting

Academic medical center.

Design

Prospective single-center double-arm patient- and assessor-masked randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Patients were randomized to receive either a ND-EDOF or monofocal IOL in both eyes, targeted for emmetropia. Uncorrected and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), level of spectacle independence, and severity of photic phenomena were assessed at 3 months postoperatively.

Results

56 patients were enrolled, of which 24 in the ND-EDOF group and 27 in the monofocal group completed follow-up. The binocular mean CDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA were 20/20, 20/19, and 20/21 for the ND-EDOF IOL and 20/18 ( P = .188), 20/31 ( P < .001), and 20/30 ( P = .004) for the monofocal IOL, respectively. At intermediate, 88% of the ND-EDOF vs 30% of the monofocal patients had a binocular DCIVA of 20/25 or better ( P < .001). Moderate or severe glare occurred in 20.8% of ND-EDOF vs 7.4% of monofocal patients ( P = .228), whereas moderate or severe halos occurred in 16.7% of ND-EDOF vs 11.1% of monofocal patients ( P = .697).

Conclusions

The ND-EDOF and monofocal IOLs provided similarly excellent distance vision. Patients implanted with the ND-EDOF IOL had 2 more lines of vision at both intermediate and near, and a greater proportion reported spectacle independence. Most patients in both groups reported low severity of photic phenomena.

SUBMITTER: Pantanelli SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10050137 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Vision and patient-reported outcomes with nondiffractive EDOF or neutral aspheric monofocal intraocular lenses.

Pantanelli Seth M SM O'Rourke Tara T Bolognia Olga O Scruggs Kathleen K Longenecker Amy A Lehman Erik E

Journal of cataract and refractive surgery 20221221 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare outcomes in patients who underwent cataract extraction with implantation of nondiffractive extended depth-of-focus (ND-EDOF; Alcon AcrySof Vivity) or neutral aspheric monofocal (Bausch & Lomb enVista) intraocular lenses (IOLs).<h4>Setting</h4>Academic medical center.<h4>Design</h4>Prospective single-center double-arm patient- and assessor-masked randomized controlled trial.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were randomized to receive either a ND-EDOF or monofocal IOL in both eye ...[more]

PMID: 36728998

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeMini-monovision is a vision correction technique that allows for a broader spectrum of spectacle independence while minimizing anisometropia. This systemic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of pseudophakic mini-monovision with three types of intraocular lenses (IOLs): monofocal, enhanced monofocal, and extended depth of focus (EDOF).MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE to identify studies reporting mini-monovision outcomes within the three categories of IOLs up to July 2024. Inclusion criteria were studies with more than 20 patients, target refraction to achieve mini-monovision difference in the fellow eye, and minimum follow-up of 3 months. The primary outcome measure was uncorrected binocular intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA). The secondary outcomes were binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity, photic phenomenon, enhancement surgeries and IOL exchange.ResultsA total of 113 studies were screened, of which 19, with a total of 1,530 patients, were eligible for inclusion in this review. Mean logMAR binocular UCIVA was 0.16 ± 0.01, 0.11 ± 0.06, 0.08 ± 0.07 (p = 0.41), and mean logMAR UCDVA was 0.08 ± 0.05, 0.04 ± 07, 0.04 ± 0.04 (p = 0.36), in the monofocal, enhanced monofocal, and EDOF groups, respectively. The mean spectacle independence rate was 51% ± 22.1, 55% ± 35.4 and 63.4% ± 24.6 (p = 0.05), respectively, in the monofocal, enhanced monofocal and EDOF groups. A comparable low incidence of halos and glare was observed when enhanced monofocal lenses were evaluated against traditional monofocal lenses. EDOF lenses have, however, demonstrated mixed results. The complications, IOL exchange, and excimer laser enhancement rates were low across all groups.ConclusionWhile enhanced monofocal and EDOF IOLs may provide slightly better binocular intermediate visual outcomes and higher spectacle independence compared to monofocal lenses with regards to mini-monovision and intermediate vision performance, the differences are not statistically significant. All three IOL types exhibit high patient satisfaction rates when choosing a mini-monovision approach with decreased dependence on spectacles.

Project description:BackgroundNew 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsTwo 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.ConclusionsAdditional 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.

Project description:IntroductionPresbyopia-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.MethodsThis 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).ResultsA 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.ConclusionSocial 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.

Dataset Information

Vision and patient-reported outcomes with nondiffractive EDOF or neutral aspheric monofocal intraocular lenses.

Purpose

Setting

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Vision and patient-reported outcomes with nondiffractive EDOF or neutral aspheric monofocal intraocular lenses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets