Top

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Published in:

Open Access 01-02-2021 | Presbyopia | Cataract

Comparison of two extended depth of focus intraocular lenses with a monofocal lens: a multi-centre randomised trial

Authors: Thomas Reinhard, Philip Maier, Daniel Böhringer, Eckart Bertelmann, Tobias Brockmann, Laszlo Kiraly, David Salom, Matteo Piovella, Stephane Colonval, Javier Mendicute

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 2/2021

Abstract

Purpose

The AT LARA 829MP is a next-generation extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) providing continuous vision over a range of distances. The aim of this prospective multi-centre randomised trial was to compare two EDOF IOLs and one monofocal IOL.

Methods

Cataract patients between 50 and 80 years were randomised for bilateral implantation with either the AT LARA 829MP (EDOF), the TECNIS Symfony (EDOF) or the CT ASPHINA 409MP (monofocal). Follow-up was at 1 to 2 weeks, 1 month and 4 to 6 months.

Results

A total of 211 patients were randomised and included in the final analysis. Monocular depth of focus was significantly better for AT LARA 829MP eyes compared with that for TECNIS Symfony at all thresholds (p = 0.024, 0.001 and 0.006, for 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 logMAR respectively) with no significant difference for binocular depth of focus. LARA eyes had significantly better monocular depth of focus at all levels compared with ASPHINA eyes (all p < 0.0001), while there was no significant difference between Symfony and ASPHINA eyes at 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR. Both EDOF IOLs were significantly better than the monofocal ASPHINA at all levels for binocular depth of focus (LARA: all p < 0.0001; Symfony: all p = 0.002). Distance visual acuity was similar for all IOLs at 6 months; intermediate and near visual acuity were significantly better for the EDOF IOLs than for the monofocal (p < 0.0001). Refraction improved in all groups relative to baseline. Contrast sensitivity was higher with the CT ASPHINA 409MP but both EDOF lenses had a better spectacle independence rate. At 6 months, all IOLs were well centred with no cases of tilt. No general safety issues were raised for any of the groups.

Conclusion

The two EDOF intraocular lenses investigated provided good visual outcomes with comparable visual acuity at all distances. The AT LARA 829MP provided the widest monocular depth of focus at 0.1 and 0.2 logMAR, with a clear superiority compared with the monofocal IOL. TECNIS Symfony was superior to the monofocal control at 0.3 logMAR. Spectacle independence and patient satisfaction were comparable.

Trial registration

Trial registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ under the identification NCT03172351 (date of registration 1 June May 2017).

Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Baamonde MB et al (2007) Prospective visual evaluation of apodized diffractive intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(7):1235–1243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.03.034CrossRefPubMed

Wang SY, Stem MS, Oren G et al (2017) Patient-centered and visual quality outcomes of premium cataract surgery: a systematic review. Eur J Ophthalmol 27(4):387–401. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000978CrossRefPubMed

Akella SS, Juthani VV (2018) Extended depth of focus intraocular lenses for presbyopia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 29(4):318–322. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000490CrossRefPubMed

Attia MSA, Auffarth GU, Kretz FTA et al (2017) Clinical evaluation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with the Salzburg Reading Desk. J Refract Surg 33(10):664–669. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170621-08CrossRefPubMed

Weeber HA, Meijer ST, Piers PA (2015) Extending the range of vision using diffractive intraocular lens technology. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(12):2746–2754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.034CrossRefPubMed

Hogarty DT, Russell DJ, Ward BM et al (2018) Comparing visual acuity, range of vision and spectacle independence in the extended range of vision and monofocal intraocular lens. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 46(8):854–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13310CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.11.011CrossRefPubMed

Ferreira TB, Pinheiro J, Zabala L et al (2018) Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes of a monofocal and an extended-range-of-vision intraocular lens in eyes with previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 44(2):149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.11.007CrossRefPubMed

Pilger D, Homburg D, Brockmann T et al (2018) Clinical outcome and higher order aberrations after bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol 28(4):425–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672118766809CrossRefPubMed

10.

Pedrotti E, Bruni E, Bonacci E et al (2016) Comparative analysis of the clinical outcomes with a monofocal and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 32(7):436–442. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160428-06CrossRefPubMed

11.

MacRae S, Holladay JT, Glasser A et al (2017) Special report: American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force consensus statement for extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 124(1):139–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.039CrossRefPubMed

12.

Schallhorn SC, Teenan D, Venter JA et al (2019) Initial clinical outcomes of a new extended depth of focus intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 35(7):426–433. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20190530-01CrossRefPubMed

13.

Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchin J (1993) Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci 70(1):54–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199301000-00010CrossRefPubMed

14.

Mönestam E, Lundqvist B (2006) Long-time results and associations between subjective visual difficulties with car driving and objective visual function 5 years after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 32(1):50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.06.052CrossRefPubMed

15.

Wood J, Chaparro A, Carberry T, Chu BS (2010) Effect of simulated visual impairment on nightime driving performance. Optom Vis Sci 87(6):379–386. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181d95b0dCrossRefPubMed

16.

Hohberger B, Laemmer R, Adler W et al (2007) Measuring contrast sensitivity in normal subjects with OPTEC 6500: influence of age and glare. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245(12):1805–1814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-007-0662-xCrossRefPubMed

17.

Hayashi K, S-i M, Yoshida M et al (2010) Effect of astigmatism on visual acuity in eyes with a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(8):1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.02.016CrossRefPubMed

18.

Son H-S, Kim SH, Auffarth GU et al (2019) Prospective comparative study of tolerance to refractive errors after implantation of extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses with identical aspheric platform in Korean population. BMC Ophthalmol 19(1):187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1193-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Bach M (2007) The Freiburg visual acuity test-variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245(7):965–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-006-0474-4CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wesemann W (2002) Visual acuity measured via the Freiburg visual acuity test (FVT), Bailey Lovie chart and Landolt ring chart (Sehscharfebestimmung mit Freiburger Visustest, Bailey-Lovie-Tafel und Landoltring-Tafel). Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 219(9):660–667. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-35168CrossRefPubMed

21.

Bühren J, Terzi E, Bach M et al (2006) Measuring contrast sensitivity under different lighting conditions: comparison of three tests. Optom Vis Sci 83(5):290–298. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000216100.93302.2dCrossRefPubMed

22.

Kurtenbach A, Langrová H, Messias A et al (2013) A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity. Doc Ophthalmol 126(1):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-012-9359-5CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of two extended depth of focus intraocular lenses with a monofocal lens: a multi-centre randomised trial
Authors: Thomas Reinhard
Philip Maier
Daniel Böhringer
Eckart Bertelmann
Tobias Brockmann
Laszlo Kiraly
David Salom
Matteo Piovella
Stephane Colonval
Javier Mendicute
Publication date: 01-02-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Presbyopia
Cataract
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04868-5

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of two extended depth of focus intraocular lenses with a monofocal lens: a multi-centre randomised trial

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Central geographic atrophy vs. neovascular age–related macular degeneration: differences in longitudinal vision-related quality of life

Novel probabilistic model of core vitreous traction using microsurgical vitrectomy tools

Automated digital analysis of intraoperative keratoscopy and its correlation with postoperative astigmatism after big-bubble deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty

Macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in a real-life setting: a multicenter, nationwide, 3-year follow-up study

Retinal microvascular metrics in untreated essential hypertensives using optical coherence tomography angiography

Optical coherence tomography angiography for detection of macular neovascularization associated with atrophy in age-related macular degeneration