Nondiffractive wavefront-shaping extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens: visual performance and patient-reported outcomes

Abstract

To evaluate visual performance and patient-reported outcomes after bilateral implantation of a new nondiffractive wavefrontshaping extended depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL).

Patient Satisfaction and Visual Performance in Patients with Ocular Pathology after Bilateral Implantation of a New Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens

“…Visual acuity for −1.50 D defocus was 0.03 for both groups, and for −2.50 D defocus, it was 0.18 for the study group and 0.2 for the control group. This compares favourably with Kohnen et al s study, in which LogMAR acuity was 0.10 and 0.38 for −1.50 D and −2.50 D defocus, respectively [ 10 ]. In fact, it seems to be similar also to the results reported in the study of mini-monovision, in which binocular defocus curves showed a visual acuity greater than 0.10 logMAR in the range from −2.0 D to +0.5 D, with values of 0.01 and 0.24 logMAR for −1.50 D and −2.50 D defocus, respectively.…”

“…Corrected monocular visual acuity in our study was similar to these results, for both the healthy group (−0.01 ± 0.06) and the study group (0.00 ± 0.06). Uncorrected monocular visual acuity in our study was better than reported by Kohnen et al [ 10 ], possibly due to the lower postoperative spherical equivalent in our patients (−0.04 ± 0.17 D in the control group and −0.07 ± 0.19 D in the study group) compared with the one in their study: −0.16 ± 0.356 D with 90.6% of eyes within ±0.50 D of target refraction, compared with 96% of eyes in our study. The Netherland group reported a postoperative spherical equivalent in the dominant eye of 0.11 ± 0.31 D [ 11 ] and Arrigo et al of −0.1 ± 0.2 D [ 9 ].…”

“…Gundersen and Potvin studied the effects on the binocular defocus curve in 40 healthy patients by simulating myopia in the nondominant eye [ 8 ] and a group from the Netherlands reported the refractive outcomes, defocus curves, spectacle independence, photic phenomena, and Catquest-9SF questionnaires in 22 healthy patients targeted for monovision [ 11 ]. Kohnen et al studied these same outcome measures in a group of 16 healthy patients targeted for emmetropia [ 10 ].…”

“…Kohnen et al reported a monocular UCDVA and CDVA of 0.12 ± 0.14 logMAR and 0.01 ± 0.05 logMAR, respectively [ 10 ], while the group from the Netherlands found a CDVA of −0.04 ± 0.11 logMAR in the dominant eye [ 11 ]. Arrigo et al reported a monocular UCDVA and CDVA of 0.1 ± 0.04 and 0.0 ± 0.03, respectively [ 9 ].…”

“…Regarding binocular function, Kohnen et al reported a binocular UCDVA and CDVA of 0.01 ± 0.05 and −0.02 ± 0.07, respectively, [ 10 ] and the Netherland group with their monovision approach, −0.07 ± 0.10 and −0.10 ± 0.08, respectively [ 11 ]. Again, this compares favourably with the uncorrected values of −0.06 ± 0.06 for the control group and −0.05 ± 0.06 for the study group and corrected values of −0.06 ± 0.06 for both groups in our study.…”