COMPARATIVE VISUAL AND PATIENT SATISFACTION OUTCOMES WITH PANOPTIX CLAREON VS PANOPTIX MULTIFOCAL INTRAOCULAR LENSES IN CATARACT SURGERY

The purpose of this study is to compare visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between patients with PanOptix Clareon Multifocal and patients with PanOptix Multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) after cataract surgery. The aim of this study is to demonstrate differences in performance in terms of visual acuity, quality of vision and patient satisfaction between these two IOLs.

Cataract surgery, PanOptix Clareon, PanOptix Multifocal, visual acuity, patient satisfaction, dysphotopsia

This study includes 30 patients aged 50-71 undergoing cataract surgery. The patients had various cataract grades and refractive errors. They were divided into two groups Group A and Group B. Group A has 15 patients that received PanOptix Clareon Multifocal IOL, while Group B has 15 patients that received PanOptix Multifocal IOL. We did preoperative assessments that included initial visual acuity (UCDVA,CDVA, and CNVA) and refractive data. Postoperative assessments included refractive data, distance visual acuity, intermediate visual acuity, and near visual acuity. We asked our patients to complete a standardized questionnaire rating their satisfaction that included clarity of vision, ease of performing daily tasks, and overall comfort with the lens, additionally patients were evaluated for dysphotopsia, including symptoms like glare and halos. We had follow-up evaluations 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery.

Our results showed us that both groups experienced significant improvements in distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity reaching mean postoperative acuities of 20/20 in both groups by the third month. Group A had slightly better near and intermediate vision, achieving consistent J1 acuity at 40 cm and 60 cm. Visual acuity was stable in all follow up visits. Patients from group A- PanOptix Clareon IOL reported fewer dysphotopsia symptoms with reduced glare and halos likely contributing to higher satisfaction scores. In Group B visual improvements were comparable but mild dysphotopsia symptoms were noted. Satisfaction ratings were slightly higher in Group A. Patients with PanOptix Clareon IOLs reported greater clarity in intermediate and near tasks, enhanced comfort in various lighting conditions, resulting in fewer visual disturbances during nighttime driving and bright light settings. No significant complications were observed in either group and visual outcomes remained stable over the three-month follow-up period.

Both IOLs provided improvements in visual acuity meeting the visual demands of daily tasks without any need of corrective lenses. Compared with standard PanOptix IOLs, PanOptix Clareon IOLs were associated with higher patient satisfaction, mostly when it comes to reducing dysphotopsia and in patients concerned with night vision quality. Our results showed us that Pantoptix Clareion IOL is good at minimizing glares or halos. Nevertheless both IOLs were effective in achieving clear vision in patients after cataract surgery.