Johnson Vision Research Articles

Comparison Between Monofocal and Aspheric Monofocal Intraocular Lens With Higher Order Aspheric Optic in Pediatric Patients: Early Outcomes.

To retrospectively compare the visual acuity outcomes for far, intermediate, and near vision of an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) with higher order aspheric optic with a monofocal IOL in pediatric patients. Thirty-eight eyes of 38 patients (mean age: 9.0 ± 2.3 years) affected by monolateral infantile cataract were evaluated 6 months after surgery performed with simultaneous IOL implantation. The Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 aspheric monofocal IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision) was implanted in 17 eyes (Tecnis Eyhance group, mean age: 8.9 ± 2.5 years) and the Tecnis PCB00 monofocal IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision) was implanted in 21 eyes (control group, mean age: 9.1 ± 2.2 years). Corrected visual acuity expressed in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) was assessed for distance (CDVA) and, expressed in Jaeger standard, for intermediate (DCIVA) and near vision (CNVA). DCIVA was measured with distance correction and without addition. The Mann-Whitney test for two independent samples was performed, and a P value less than .05 was considered statistically significant. Six months postoperatively, mean CDVA was 0.20 ± 0.2 logMAR and mean DCIVA and CNVA were 5 ± 1 and 2 ± 1 Jaeger, respectively, in the Tecnis Eyhance group. In the control group, mean CDVA was 0.21 ± 0.2 logMAR and mean DCIVA and CNVA were 8 ± 1 and 3 ± 1 Jaeger, respectively. Only DCIVA showed a significant statistical difference between groups (P < .0001). In pediatric patients, the aspheric monofocal IOL with higher order aspheric optic seems to provide better intermediate distance visual acuity than a monofocal one, whereas no significant difference was observed for CDVA and CNVA. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(10):e724-e727.].

Comparison of visual efficacy and patient’s satisfaction between two toric IOLs, enhanced for intermediate vision and monofocal

BackgroundTo compare the visual efficacy and patient satisfaction between 2 toric IOLs (TIOL), enhanced for intermediate vision or monofocal.MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed of 100 eyes from 68 astigmatic patients who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of a Tecnis Eyhance Toric II IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision, Irvine, CA, USA) (Group 1, 50 eyes) or Tecnis TIOL (Group 2, 50 eyes). The uncorrected distant (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities; residual refractive astigmatism; defocus curve; and IOL axis rotation were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months postoperatively.ResultsThe postoperative UDVA and UNVA refractive astigmatism values of the two groups were better than the preoperative measurements (P < 0.05), but there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The postoperative UIVA of group 1 (0.18 ± 0.15 logMAR) was significantly better than that of group 2 (0.30 ± 0.25) (P < 0.05). The mean postoperative IOL rotation of group 1 (2.51 ± 0.79°) was lower than that of group 2 (3.02 ± 0.84°) (P < 0.05). Overall satisfaction of group 1 (1.27 ± 0.47) was better than that of group 2 (2.02 ± 0.53) (P < 0.05).ConclusionsThe Tecnis Eyhance Toric II IOL demonstrated less postoperative IOL rotation and excellent uncorrected intermediate vision compared with the Tecnis TIOL. Near visual acuity and overall satisfaction with the Tecnis Eyhance Toric II IOL were also higher than those with the Tecnis TIOL.

Retinal Image Quality Through an Operating Microscope With Wavefront Shaping Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens in Model Eye

To compare the quality of images of gratings placed in a model eye viewed through an extended depth of focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL) to that of diffractive bifocal IOL or monofocal IOL. Experimental laboratory investigation. Nondiffractive wavefront shaping EDoF (CNAET0, Alcon Laboratories), echelette-designed EDoF (ZXR00V, Johnson & Johnson Vision), diffractive bifocal IOL with low power addition (SV25T, Alcon Laboratories), or monofocal IOL (CNA0T0, Alcon Laboratories) was placed in a fluid-filled model eye. A United States Air Force Resolution Grating Target was glued to the posterior surface of the model eye and viewed through a flat or a wide-angle contact lens. The contrast of the gratings viewed through the EDoF or multifocal IOLs was compared to that through the monofocal IOL. A wavefront analyzer was used to measure the spherical power of the central 4.5 mm optics of the EDoF, multifocal, and monofocal IOLs. The distribution of the dioptric power and the dioptric power map were compared. The gratings observed through the flat contact lens with CNAET0, ZXR00V, or SV25T were slightly blurred when viewed through the multifocal optics. The blurred area was in the circumferential area of CNAET0, the central area of SV25T, and the peripheral area of ZXR00V. The mean contrast was 0.258 ± 0.020 for CNAET0, 0.227 ± 0.025 for ZXR00V, and 0.221 ± 0.020 for SV25T for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating. The contrast was significantly lower for ZXR00V (P = .004) and SV25T (P = .004) than 0.303 ± 0.015 for CNA0T0 but the differences were not significant for CNAET0. For the wide-angle contact lens, the contrast for CNAET0 was 0.182 ± 0.009, for ZXR00V was 0.162 ± 0.011, and for SV25T was 0.163 ± 0.007 for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating, and none was significantly different from 0.188 ± 0.012 for CNA0T0. The dioptric variations of CNAET0 indicated a ring-shaped area of higher power corresponding to the circumferential blurred zone observed through the flat contact lens. The wavefront shaping and echelette-designed EDoF-IOLs reduce the contrast of the grating more than the monofocal IOL when viewed through the flat contact lens. The degree of reduction depended on the design of the extended-focus optics. The difference was less through the wide-angle contact lens.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) with Refractive and Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) Intraocular Lenses.

Extended depth of focus intraocular lenses (EDOF-IOLs) provide unaided far- and mid-range vision. Refractive IOLs, in contrast to diffractive designs, are associated with a lower depth of focus and absence of dysphotopsia. The aim of this study was to assess spectacle independence for far-range, mid-range, and near-vision activities in patients after implantation of refractive or diffractive EDOF-IOLs using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a real-world setting. In 2021 and 2022, all patients in a single center referred for bilateral cataract surgery were assigned to 7 experienced cataract surgeons who either bilaterally implanted only a diffractive EDOF-IOL (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, AT LARA Jena, Germany, three surgeons) or refractive EDOF-IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision Inc., Tecnis Eyhance Irvine, California, USA, four surgeons) at the surgeon's discretion, with the aim of bilateral emmetropia. Six months after both cataract surgeries, all patients were contacted by telephone and asked to report their outcomes using a structured questionnaire investigating their spectacle usage for various daily activities and their experience with night glare or halos. Inclusion criteria were a normal postoperative visual potential based on the preoperative examination and completion of the questionnaire regarding postoperative visual experience. Of the patients, 514 underwent bilateral cataract surgery aiming for bilateral emmetropia with the implantation of EDOF-IOLs (422 with Tecnis Eyhance and 92 with AT LARA). A complete questionnaire was obtained from 472 (92%) patients, who were included in the study (393 vs. 79). Comparing Tecnis Eyhance with AT LARA IOL, 54 vs. 57% patients were able to perform most of their daily activities without spectacles, 9 vs. 19% reported not being dependent on spectacles at all, 25 vs. 29% reported using their smartphones without spectacles, 15 vs. 49% patients reported experiencing glares or halos at night, and 1 vs.15% with driving disturbance. Overall, 95 vs. 93% patients described themselves as "satisfied" or "highly satisfied" with their IOL. With both types of EDOF-IOLs, the majority of patients could perform most of their daily activities without spectacles, except reading, and were highly satisfied with their IOLs. Patients with diffractive Zeiss AT LARA EDOF-IOLs were more likely to accomplish unaided near-range visual tasks; however, they were also at a higher risk of experiencing glares or halos at night.

A comparative study of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses combining bifocal and extended depth-of-focus profiles.

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). 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 33cm) visual acuity (UNVA), objective optical quality (OOQ) parameters, distance-corrected defocus curve analysis, and surveys of subjective satisfaction. 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 33cm) 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). Both IOLs provided a decent continuous range of vision from near to far distance.

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

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of two toric presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs). Non-randomized prospective comparative study including 86 eyes of 51 patients (age 43-83years) 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. At 6months 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 6months 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). 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 40cm.

Video analysis of optic-haptic-interaction during hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens implantation using preloaded injectors

ObjectiveTo compare the optic-haptic interaction of different hydrophobic acrylic IOLs after using six preloaded injectors.MethodsWe reviewed the video-recordings of procedures on a total of 388 eyes that underwent phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. For six preloaded injectors: multiSert (Hoya Surgical Optics) [System 1], TECNIS Simplicity (Johnson & Johnson Vision) [System 2], TECNIS iTec (Johnson & Johnson Vision) [System 3], AutonoMe (Alcon, Laboratories) [System 4], Bluesert (Carl Zeiss Meditec) [System 5], and Prosert (OphthalmoPro GmbH) [System 6], we noted in each case the time of IOL delivery and made a descriptive observation of IOL insertion and optic-haptic-interaction.ResultsWe defined standard haptic behavior where the haptics emerged “folded” from the injector and quickly recovered their pre-implantation appearance. The incidence where the leading haptic emerged in a deformed way for System 1 was 20%, System 2: 19%, System 3: 14%, System 4: 56%, System 5: 24% and System 6: 5%. For trailing haptic deformed behavior, the incidence was 36%, 6%, 4%, 8%, 18% and 2%, respectively for Systems 1 to 6. Optic-haptic adhesion occurred in 2% of cases for System 1, 44% for System 2, 52% for System 3, 48% for System 4, and 11% for System 6 (P < 0.05). Adhesion was not found with System 5.ConclusionsWe observed different deformed behavior for leading and trailing haptics in the six preloaded systems, some systems had as much as 52% optic-haptic adhesion.

Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Diffractive Trifocal Versus Hybrid Multifocal-extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses

Purpose: We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who received AcrySof IQ Panoptix TFNT00 (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA), a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL), or TECNIS Synergy ZFR00V (Johnson &amp; Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA), a hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL.Methods: In total, 26 eyes of 13 patients who underwent bilateral implantation of the diffractive trifocal IOL (group A) and 24 eyes of 12 patients who underwent bilateral implantation of the hybrid multifocal-EDOF IOL (group B) were included. We assessed visual acuity using the logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) scale and evaluated the visual performance of both groups, including uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) and the defocus curve at 1 month postoperatively. In addition, we measured contrast sensitivity and administered a satisfaction questionnaire at 3 months postoperatively.Results: At 1 month postoperatively, group B demonstrated significantly better monocular UDVA, UNVA and binocular UNVA compared to group A (0.07 ± 0.07, 0.24 ± 0.16, and 0.18 ± 0.15 vs. 0.13 ± 0.09, 0.33 ± 0.14, and 0.29 ± 0.11; &lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt; &lt; 0.05). In addition, group B exhibited higher visual acuities in the monocular and binocular defocus curves at +1.00 diopters (D), -3.00 D, -3.50 D, and +1.00 D (&lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt; &lt; 0.05). Notably, the binocular defocus curves of both groups demonstrated excellent logMAR visual acuities (better than 0.2) in the range of 0.00 to -3.00 D. However, no significant differences were observed between the groups in contrast sensitivity or satisfaction questionnaire responses for visual acuity at 3 months postoperatively (&lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt; &gt; 0.05).Conclusions: The hybrid multifocal-EDOF IOL demonstrates superior near visual acuity compared to the diffractive trifocal IOL. However, both IOLs exhibit excellent visual acuity at distant, intermediate, and near distances.

Comparison of the Incidence of Nd:YAG Laser Capsulotomy Based on the Type of Intraocular Lens.

Background and Objectives: Posterior capsular opacification (PCO) is the most common long-term complication of successful cataract surgery and can cause visual impairment. We aimed to investigate the effects of intraocular lens (IOL) characteristics on PCO by comparing the incidence of neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser capsulotomy for different types of intraocular lenses. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 2866 eyes that underwent cataract surgery between January 2010 and December 2017, with at least 5 years of follow-up. The IOLs used for surgery were the hydrophobic lenses SN60WF (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA), ZCB00 (Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA), and MX60 (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY, USA), and the hydrophilic lens MI60 (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY, USA). We analyzed the incidence of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy according to the type of IOL used. Results: The incidence of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy was significantly higher with MI60 lenses (31.70%, 175/552 eyes) compared to SN60WF (7.90%, 113/1431 eyes), ZCB00 (10.06%, 64/636 eyes), and MX60 (10.57%, 13/123 eyes; p < 0.001) lenses. The incidence of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy was significantly lower with the hydrophobic IOLs (8.68%, 190/2190 eyes) than with the hydrophilic IOL (31.70%, 175/552 eyes; p < 0.001). Over time, the rate of increase in the cumulative number of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy cases was the highest with MI60. The cumulative rate of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy during the first 3 years was 4.90% with SN60WF (70/1431 eyes), 6.76% with ZCB00 (43/636 eyes), 8.94% with MX60 (11/123 eyes), and 26.10% with MI60 (144/552 eyes) lenses. Conclusions: The incidence of PCO is influenced by the material of the IOLs. The hydrophilic IOL was associated with a higher rate of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy than the hydrophobic IOLs, with a shorter time to Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy.

Comparative Evaluation of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction following Cataract Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis of an Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens and a Diffractive Multifocal Lens with Extended Depth of Focus

(1) Background: Cataract surgery has evolved significantly with the development of multifocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses (IOLs), driven by increasing patient desire for spectacle independence. (2) Methods: This retrospective, single-center study conducted on 86 eyes from 59 patients aged 40–80 years compared the performance and patient satisfaction of Symfony® and Synergy® (Johnson &amp; Johnson Vision) IOLs during a follow-up of 1 year postsurgery. Uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities were assessed (UDVA, CDVA, UIVA, CIVA, UNVA, and CNVA, respectively). (3) Results: Although both IOLs demonstrated a commendable distance VA, Synergy® outperformed in near VA (UNVA, p = 0.040; CNVA, p = 0.014), and Symfony® slightly excelled in intermediate VA (UIVA, p = 0.014; CIVA, p = 0.040). The defocus curve of Synergy® maintained a higher VA even at −4 D with a smoother curve and a broad landing zone. Although the optical quality assessments were similar, Symfony® had a nonsignificant edge. Patients indicated higher satisfaction and reduced reliance on spectacles with Synergy® despite more frequent reports of glare and halos. (4) Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of personalized IOL selection in cataract surgery, which must be customized to apply the distinctive advantages of each IOL to address the unique visual requirements and lifestyle of patients.

Contact lenses and presbyopia

Earlier this year, Optician and Johnson &amp; Johnson Vision invited a group of contact lens experts to share their thoughts on presbyopia and multifocal contact lenses. Optician reports

Comparison of the 1st Generation and 3rd Generation Wavefront-Guided LASIK for the Treatment of Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism.

To compare refractive, visual, and patient-reported outcomes associated with a 1st generation wavefront-guided (WFG) treatment with those associated with a 3rd generation WFG treatment. This retrospective study included patients who underwent femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia/myopic astigmatism. Two random stratified samples of patients who underwent either 1stgeneration (WaveScan, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA) or 3rd generation (iDesign 2.0, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA) treatment matched on preoperative refraction were compared (4290 eyes of 2145 patients in each group). One-month postoperative visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. Refractive and monocular visual acuity analyses were performed using one random eye of each patient. The percentage of eyes achieving 20/20 or better uncorrected vision was 91.3% (1958/2145) in the 1st generation group and 95.9% (2056/2145) in the 3rd generation group (p<0.01). Binocularly, the percentage of patients with 20/20 or better UDVA was 97.0% (2080/2145) and 99.2% (2127/2145) in the 1st and 3rd generation groups, respectively (p<0.01). The mean postoperative MSE was -0.01 ± 0.33 D in the 1st generation group and +0.19 ± 0.33 D in the 3rd generation group (p<0.01). Postoperative refractive astigmatism had a mean value of -0.20 ± 0.26 D and -0.18 ± 0.24 D in the 1st and 3rd generation groups, respectively (p<0.01). The mean correction index of refractive astigmatism was 1.09 ± 0.53 in the 1st generation group and 1.02 ± 0.38 in the 3rd generation group, p<0.01. The overall percentage of patients satisfied with vision was 92.8% (1991/2145 patients) in the 1st generation group and 97.3% (2087/2145 patients) in the 3rd generation group (p<0.01). For the majority of postoperative variables, there were significant differences between 1st and 3rd generation treatments. The 3rd generation treatments had better visual acuity outcomes and higher patient satisfaction.

Putting the patient in the centre

Mike Hale catches up with Jacqueline Henderson, president, EMEA, at Johnson &amp; Johnson Vision, to discuss the synergies between optometry and ophthalmology, differing approaches to eye care across national boundaries, and trends in contact lens prescribing

Four-flanged polypropylene optic piercing technique for scleral fixation of multifocal intraocular lens

BackgroundTo evaluate the feasibility of creating flanges using an optic piercing technique with a 6 − 0 polypropylene monofilament for scleral fixation of dislocated one-piece diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).Study DesignExperimental study and case series.SubjectsOptical bench test and eyes with IOL dislocation.MethodsTwo separate 6 − 0 polypropylenes were penetrated twice at the opposite peripheral optic of the TECNIS Synergy IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision). The root mean square of the modulation transfer function (MTFRMS), at between + 1.00 and − 4.00 D of defocus, was measured in the TECNIS Synergy IOL both with and without optic piercing in the optical bench study. This case series included three eyes from two patients who underwent scleral-fixation of multifocal IOLs using the four-flanged polypropylene optic piercing technique. The postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at 4 m, the uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm, and IOL centration were evaluated.ResultsThe optical bench test showed no differences in MTFRMS values measured in the TECNIS Synergy IOL, either with or without optic piercing at all defocuses. In all three case series, the postoperative CDVA at 4 m was 20/20 and UNVA at 40 cm was J1. Postoperative anterior segment photographs showed good centration of IOLs in all cases.ConclusionThe four-flanged polypropylene optic piercing technique for multifocal IOL scleral fixation can provide excellent clinical outcomes and IOL stability after surgery without diminishing the performance of the multifocal IOLs.

Refractive Outcomes of Intraocular Lenses with Different Haptic Designs Following Phacovitrectomy with Gas Tamponade

Purpose: To compare the refractive outcomes of closed C-loop and C-loop intraocular lenses (IOLs) following phacovitrectomy with gas tamponade.Methods: Medical records of 42 patients (43 eyes) who underwent phacovitrectomy with gas tamponade for idiopathic macular holes between January 2021 and June 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Closed C-loop (26 eyes; Eyelike K-flex Aspheric&lt;sup&gt;®&lt;/sup&gt;, Koryo Eyetech, Seoul, Korea) and C-loop (17 eyes; Tecnis&lt;sup&gt;®&lt;/sup&gt; ZCB00, Johnson &amp; Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) IOLs were surgically implanted. The main outcome measures were postoperative prediction error and absolute error.Results: There was no significant difference in mean absolute error at 5 months postoperatively (0.34 ± 0.24 diopters [D] and 0.30 ± 0.25 D in the closed C-loop and C-loop IOL groups, respectively; &lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt; = 0.502). The mean prediction error at 5 months postoperatively also showed no significant difference between the groups (-0.28 ± 0.30 D and -0.16 ± 0.36 D, respectively; &lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt; = 0.242). Myopic shift was observed in both groups.Conclusions: There was no significant difference in refractive outcomes between closed C-loop IOLs and C-loop IOLs. A myopic shift was observed in both groups; this should be taken into consideration when calculating IOL power following phacovitrectomy with gas tamponade.

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

PurposeThis 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.MethodsRandomised 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.ResultsNo 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

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.

Вариант использования лазерной фемтосекундной факофрагментации без лазерной капсулотомии в случае осложненной катаракты

Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of using femtosecond phacofragmentation without laser capsulotomy in cataract phacoemulsification with a relatively narrow pupil against the background of pseudoexfoliation syndrome in combination with grade I lens subluxation. Material and methods. The subject of the study was a case of complicated cataract in patient Ya., 74 years old, with complaints of decreased vision in the right eye. Standard preoperative and postoperative examinations were performed. The patient underwent surgery using a phacoemulsifier (CenturionVisionSystem, Alcon, USA) with preliminary laser femtosecond support (Catalys TM Precision Laser System-Johnson&amp;Johnson Vision). A three-part IOL AcrySof MA60AC (Alcon, USA) with an optical power of 22.0 diopters was implanted. The peculiarity of the operation was that at the stage of laser femtosecond support, only phacofragmentation was performed without capsulotomy. Result. In this case, only phacofragmentation was performed without the formation of capsulorhexis with laser femtosecond support of phacoemulsification against the background of a rigid, relatively narrow pupil, which made it possible to safely use the usual methods of mechanical pupil dilation followed by manual performance of capsulorhexis of the optimal diameter. On the 2nd day after the operation, visual acuity without correction was 0.5, with a correction of –0.75 diopters – 0.7. The result of surgical treatment in this case indicates that a separate use of femtosecond laser fragmentation of the lens without anterior capsulotomy is possible. In this case, it was applied taking into account the combined pathology: pseudoexfoliation syndrome, lens subluxation, relatively narrow pupil and the objective need to use the Malyugin ring, the planned method of fixing the IOL. The preserved anterior capsule made it possible to perform standard implantation of the Malyugin ring without any special features, followed by capsulorhexis of the optimal diameter. Conclusion. This example demonstrates the possibility of safely and effectively performing phacofragmentation without capsulorhexis at the stage of laser femtosecond support during cataract phacoemulsification, when the pupil diameter does not allow programming the optimal capsulorhexis size. Key words: ciliocapsular fixation, intraocular lens, pseudoexfoliation syndrome, femtosecond laser

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

BackgroundTo compare the clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses (IOLs) and standard monofocal IOLs.MethodsIn 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).ResultsAt 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.ConclusionsBilateral 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.

Comparative Study Between Non-Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses.

To evaluate the visual acuity and quality of vision in bilaterally implanted ZCBOO/ZCTx monofocal (Johnson & Johnson Vision) intraocular lens (IOL) and bilaterally implanted DATx15 extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (Alcon Vision, LLC). A single site, non-interventional study comparing ZCBOO/ZCTx monofocal IOL patients implanted with DATx15 IOL toric or non-toric versions in both eyes. A total of 30 patients (60 eyes) completed the study in the monofocal group, 32 (64 eyes) in the EDOF group, and all were targeted for emmetropia. Binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate (66cm), and near (40cm) visual acuities and distance corrected distance, intermediate (66cm) and near (40cm) visual acuities were assessed. Binocular distance corrected defocus curve testing was from -3.5 D to +3 D. Patient reported visual disturbances (QUVID) and IOL satisfaction (IOLSAT) questionnaires were administered. The DATx15 group mean uncorrected visual acuity was 0.15 ± 0.10 logMAR at 66cm and 0.36 ± 0.14 logMAR at 40cm, compared to 0.24 ± 0.15 logMAR and 0.59 ± 0.17 logMAR respectively for the ZCBOO/ZCTx group. The DATx15 group (23 respondents, 74%) also reported significantly more spectacle independence at near with the IOLSAT (p < 0.01), compared to the ZCBOO/ZCTx group (13 respondents, 43%). Glare, halos, starbursts, and blur reported on the QUVID questionnaire were similar in the two groups. The DATx15 group had improved near and intermediate vision and increased spectacle independence compared to the ZCBOO/ZCTx group.