Comparison Of Visual Outcomes With Different Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

Published 2022 - 40th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: PP19.11 | Type: ESCRS 2022 - Posters | DOI: 10.82333/qsxt-ka39

Authors: Laura Kapitanovaite* ¹ , Dalia Zaliuniene ² , Reda Zemaitiene ²

¹Department of Ophthalmology,Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Medical Academy Faculty of Medicine ,Kaunas,Lithuania, ²Department of Ophthalmology,Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Medical Academy Faculty of Medicine,Kaunas,Lithuania

Purpose

To compare clinical performance of classic monofocal intraocular lenses (IOL) and an enhanced monofocal IOL.

Setting

All implantations and follow-ups were performed at the Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Clinics.

Methods

A prospective study of 32 patients (60 eyes), without ocular comorbidities, undergoing uneventful cataract surgery done by two experienced surgeons. One of the following IOLs was implanted: monofocal Alcon Vision Clareon CNA0T0 (n=20 eyes), monofocal Tecnis ZCB00 (n=20), or an enhanced monofocal Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 (n=20). Emmetropia was targeted for all eyes. Follow up exams were performed 2-6 months after the surgery. Results of uncorrected visual acuity (VA) (logMAR) for distance (6 meters), intermediate (66 cm) and near (40 cm), defocus curves, photopic contrast sensitivity (CS; Optec 6500 Functional Acuity Contrast Test) and halometry (Halo v1.0 programme) were documented.

Results

Post-operative distance VA was the same between IOLs (0.04±0.06) (p>0.05). Intermediate VA was significantly better for Eyhance (0.13±0.03) than Clareon (0.29±0.04) and Tecnis ZCB00 (0.32±0.03) (p<0.01). Near VA was the same between IOLs (Clareon 0.42±0.03, Tecnis ZCB00 0.42±0.01, Eyhance 0.46±0.03) (p>0.05). CS was better at low spatial frequencies (1.5, 3 cpd) for Eyhance compared with classic monofocals (p<0.05) and same at higher frequencies (6, 12 and 18 cpd) (p>0.05). Halometry results, expressed as a disturbance index, showed the same results between IOLs (p>0.05). Defocus curves showed better optical performance at intermediate distance for Eyhance (p<0.05) and similar results at distance and near defocus levels for IOLs (p>0.05).

Conclusions

All monofocal IOLs showed good visual performance at distance with good contrast sensitivity in photic conditions. Incidence for photic phenomena was low in all monofocal IOLs. Tecnis Eyhance IOL showed better performance at intermediate distance, so it could be a better option for patients who are more dependent on intermediate vision in daily activities.