Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of new monofocal innovative and standard monofocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the early findings of new monofocal intraocular lens (Tecnis® Eyhance) in comparison with standard monofocal intraocular lens (Tecnis® 1-piece) in patients who underwent cataract surgery.

Methods

Sixty-four eyes of thirty-two patients (each intraocular lens model was implanted bilaterally in 16 patients) were included in this retrospective study. Preoperative and postoperative (at one month) manifest refraction, spherical equivalent (SE) values, monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), binocular defocus curve, photopic contrast-sensitivity, spectacle independence, photic phenomena, tolerance to residual refractive errors and complications were recorded.

Results

The mean monocular postoperative UDVA, CDVA, DCNVA, spherical equivalent and cylinder values were comparable between each group (p > 0.05). Monocular and binocular DCIVA and UCIVA were significantly higher in Tecnis® Eyhance group than Tecnis® 1-piece group (p = 0.033, p = 0.038, respectively). No statistically significant difference was detected between groups regarding the photopic contrast sensitivities for any spatial frequency (p > 0.05). Spectacle independence was significantly higher in Tecnis® Eyhance group than Tecnis® 1-piece group. Tecnis® Eyhance IOL revealed a good tolerance to unexpected residual refractive errors than Tecnis® 1-piece IOL.

Conclusion

Tecnis® Eyhance appears to be an effective option for both patients and surgeons regarding better intermediate visual acuities and more forgiving for residual refractive errors relative to the standard monofocal intraocular lenses. However, longer follow-up studies with larger group of patients are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of Tecnis® Eyhance intraocular lens.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP et al (2004) Global data on visual impairment in the year of 2002. Bull World Health Organ 82(11):844–851

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jafarinasab MR, Feizi S, Baghi AR, Ziaie H, Yaseri M (2010) Aspheric versus spherical posterior chamber intraocular lenses. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 5(4):217–222

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tan QQ, Liao X, Tian J, Jia Lin, Lan CJ (2019) Visual performance and optical quality in eyes implanted with an aspheric or spherical monofocal intraocular lens: a systematic review with meta-analyses. Int J Clin Exp Med 12(3):2486–2494

    Google Scholar 

  4. Marcos S, Barbero S, Jimenez-Alfaro I (2005) Optical quality and depth-of-field of eyes implanted with spherical and aspheric intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 21(3):223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kohnen T (2008) Multifocal IOL technology: a successful step on the journey towards presbyopia treatment. J Cataract Refract Surg 34(12):2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Piñero DP, Amparo F, Rodríguez-Prats JL, Ayala MJ (2011) Quality of life evaluation after implantation of 2 multifocal intraocular lens models and a monofocal model. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(4):638–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sachdev GS, Sachdev M (2017) Optimizing outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses. Indian J Ophthalmol 65(12):1294–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. de Silva SR, Evans JR, Kirthi V, Ziaei M, Leyland M (2016) Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD003169

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Vries NE, Webers CA, Touwslager WR, Bauer NJ, de Brabander J, Berendschot TT, Nuijts RM (2011) Dissatisfaction after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(5):859–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Woodward MA, Randleman JB, Stulting RD (2009) Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(6):992–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carones F (2017) Residual astigmatism threshold and patient satisfaction with bifocal, trifocal, and extended range of vision intraocular lenses (IOLs). Open J Ophthalmol 7:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Son HS, Kim SH, Auffarth GU, Choi CY (2019) Prospective comparative study tolerance of refractive errors after implantation of extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses with identical aspheric platform in Korean population. BMC Ophthalmol 19:187

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors obtained no commercial provider for the investigation, authorship, and broadcasting of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Batigoz Eye Health Center, 35210, Izmir, Turkey

    Ugur Unsal

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Bergama Necla-Mithat Oztüre State Hospital, 35700, Izmir, Turkey

    Huri Sabur

Authors
  1. Ugur Unsal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huri Sabur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

UU conceived the idea. UU performed surgeries and HS collected the data. UU analyzed the data and HS wrote the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huri Sabur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no financial conflict of interest related to this article.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Faculty of Medicine, Bakırcay University/Izmir. All procedures conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for participate and publication

The authors declare they have participated in this work, and they have reviewed the final version of the work, believe it represents valid work, and approve it for publication.

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

Unsal, U., Sabur, H. Comparison of new monofocal innovative and standard monofocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification. Int Ophthalmol 41, 273–282 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01579-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01579-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation