Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Vision outcomes with a new monofocal IOL

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the distance, intermediate, and near visual performance of a new IOL (ICB00, Eyhance, Tecnis) and classic monofocal IOL (SN60WF IQ AcrySof, Alcon) after unilateral implantation.

Methods

Sixty-three patients were unilaterally implanted with the ICB00 Eyhance IOL (study group) and 65 patients with the SN60WF IQ AcrySof (control group). Visual performance was assessed with monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 4 m, corrected intermediate visual acuity (CIVA) and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 60 cm, and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm.

Results

CDVA, UDVA, CNVA, and UNVA values did not differ significantly between the study and control groups (0.02 ± 0.02 vs. 0.03 ± 0.02, p = 0.523; 0.05 ± 0.13 vs. 0.05 ± 0.15, p = 0.637; 0.46 ± 0.17 vs. 0.46 ± 0.15, p = 0.821; and 0.47 ± 0.21 vs. 0.49 ± 0.25, p = 0.612; respectively), whereas the study group showed significantly better results for CIVA (0.28 ± 0.12 vs. 0.38 ± 0.13, p = 0.001) and UIVA (0.31 ± 0.16 vs. 0.41 ± 0.12, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The Eyhance IOL, which features a new optical design based on a continuous power profile, was determined to be superior to a classic monofocal IOL for intermediate visual acuity and not inferior for corrected and uncorrected distance and near visual acuity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bellucci R (2005) Multifocal intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 16:33–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dick HB (2005) Accommodative intraocular lenses: current status. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 16:8–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Calladine D, Evans JR, Shah S, Leyland M (2012) Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD003169

    Google Scholar 

  4. Highlights from the Frankfurt January 2019 Advisory Board Meeting (2018) Material: “Delivering intermediate vision: the new TECNIS eyhance monofocal IOL.” Available at https://www.jjvision.com/ Data on File, Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. DOF2018CT4015

  5. Mencucci R, Cennamo M, Venturi D, Vignapiano R, Favuzza E (2020) Visual outcome, optical quality, and patient satisfaction with a new monofocal IOL, enhanced for intermediate vision: preliminary results. J Cataract Refract Surg 46(3):378–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hogarty DT, Russell DJ, Ward BM, Dewhurst N, Burt P (2018) Comparing visual acuity, range of vision and spectacle independence in the extended range of vision and monofocal intraocular lens. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 46:854–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gil MA, Varón C, Cardona G, Buil JA (2020) Visual acuity and defocus curves with six multifocal intraocular lenses. Int Ophthalmol 40(2):393–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pedrotti E, Carones F, Aiello F et al (2018) Comparative analysis of visual outcomes with 4 intraocular lenses: monofocal, multifocal, and extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 44(2):156–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carballo-Alvarez J, Vazquez-Molini JM, Sanz-Fernandez JC et al (2015) Visual outcomes after bilateral trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation. BMC Ophthalmol. 15:26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Carballo-Alvarez J, Garcia-Bella J et al (2016) Photopic and mesopic performance of 2 different trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 27:26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vryghem JC, Heireman S (2013) Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 7:1957–1965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cochener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P et al (2012) Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of a fully diffractive trifocal lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 6:1421–1427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Marques EF, Ferreira TB (2015) Comparison of visual outcomes of 2 diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:354–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bilbao-Calabuig R, Llovet-Rausell A, Ortega-Usobiaga J et al (2017) Visual outcomes following bilateral lmplantation of two diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses in 10 084 eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 179:55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu X, Xie L, Huang Y (2018) Comparison of the visual performance after implantation of bifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses having an identical platform. J Refract Surg 34:273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O et al (2017) Visual performance, reading ability and patient satisfaction after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 11:1987–1993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mendicute J, Kapp A, Levy P et al (2016) Evaluation of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Medeiros AL, de Araujo Rolim AG, Motta AFP et al (2017) Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 11:1911–1916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Alio JL, Kaymak H, Breyer D et al (2018) Quality of life related variables measured for three multifocal diffractive intraocular lenses: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 46:380–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gundersen KG, Potvin R (2017) Trifocal intraocular lenses: a comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision provided by two different lens designs. Clin Ophthalmol. 11:1081–1087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Xu Z, Cao D, Chen X, Wu S, Wang X, Wu Q (2017) Comparison of clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12(10):e0186522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cochener B (2016) Prospective clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 32:146–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Alarcon A, Canovas C, Rosen R et al (2016) Preclinical metrics to predict through-focus visual acuity for pseudophakic patients. Biomed Opt Express. 7(5):1877–1888

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Weeber HA, Featherstone KA, Piers PA (2010) Population-based visual acuity in the presence of defocus well predicted by classical theory. J Biomed Opt 15(4):040509. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3475956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Alarcon A, Cánovas C, Koopman B, Weeber H, Auffarth GU, Piers PA (2020) Enhancing the intermediate vision of monofocal intraocular lenses using a higher order aspheric optic. J Refract Surg 36(8):520–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Terwee T, Weeber H, van der Mooren M, Piers P (2008) Visualization of the retinal image in an eye model with spherical and aspheric, diffractive, and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 24(3):223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Langeslag MJM, van der Mooren M, Beiko GHH, Piers PA (2014) Impact of intraocular lens material and design on light scatter: in vitro study. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(12):2120–2127

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ekol Eye Hospital, Izmir, Turkey

    Esat Cinar, Hülya Bolu, Gökhan Erbakan, Berna Yuce, Fatih Aslan, Murat Fece & Sinan Emre

Authors
  1. Esat Cinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hülya Bolu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gökhan Erbakan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Berna Yuce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatih Aslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Murat Fece
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sinan Emre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esat Cinar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflict of interest related to this research.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Approval for the study was obtained from the Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University Ethics Committee (protocol no. 16-2/2020).

Informed consent

Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cinar, E., Bolu, H., Erbakan, G. et al. Vision outcomes with a new monofocal IOL. Int Ophthalmol 41, 491–498 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01599-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01599-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation