UNASSIGNED: To assess visual outcomes of the implantation of a non-diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
UNASSIGNED: Ophthalmology practice, Sydney, Australia.
UNASSIGNED: Retrospective chart review.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with AMD undergoing cataract surgery and receiving non-diffractive EDOF AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL implantation over a 2-year period were identified. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA; 50 cm), contrast sensitivity, central foveal thickness, VF-14 questionnaire results, and quality of life where available were analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 28 sequential patients (51 eyes) were included in this pilot study (46% male, mean age 77.4 years). Of 27 eyes that had late AMD, 17 (63%) had wet AMD. Mean patient preoperative CDVA was logMAR 0.32±0.29. Postoperative monocular CDVA and DCNVA were logMAR 0.20±0.25 and N9±5 (range N5-N36), respectively. Eyes achieving postoperative CDVA of Snellen 6/5-6/12 (n=42, 82%), 6/15-6/24 (n=7, 14%), and greater than 6/24 (n=2, 4%) achieved a mean DCNVA of N8 (range N5-N10), N13 (range N10-N18), and N27 (range N18-N36), respectively. Eyes achieving CDVA of Snellen 6/5-6/12 showed contrast sensitivity within the normal range. On postoperative VF-14 questionnaire, patients with CDVA of Snellen 6/5-6/12 reported minimal visual impairment, while patients with CDVA greater than 6/15 reported mild impairment. A majority of patients (96%, n=27) were satisfied with the improvement in quality of life postoperatively. No intraoperative complications were reported.
UNASSIGNED: The EDOF AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL provides improved near vision proportional to distance vision in patients with early AMD.

UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the long-term (>1 yr) outcomes a non-diffractive extended vision intraocular lens (AcrySof IQ Vivity) compared to monofocal control.
UNASSIGNED: This was a multicenter trial that took place in 4 separate private ophthalmology practices throughout the United States.
UNASSIGNED: This was a prospective, non-interventional, controlled, multicenter trial. All subjects were enrolled from participants in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical trial that led to the approval of the AcrySof IQ Vivity.
UNASSIGNED: Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), distance corrected visual acuity (DCVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 66cm, distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 66cm, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40cm, and distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40cm were measured. The binocular defocus curve was measured. A 23-question survey on visual performance including questions on spectacle independence, satisfaction, dysphotopsias, and likelihood of recommending their lens to another person was used administered.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 64 eyes of 32 subjects were enrolled. Seventeen subjects had bilateral implantation of the AcrySof IQ Vivity lens, and 15 subjects had bilateral implantation of the AcrySof IQ Monofocal (SN60WF). Mean follow up time was 1078 days for the study group compared to 1067 days for the control group (p = 0.92). There were no differences in UCVA or DCVA between the two groups. Compared to control, the AcrySof IQ Vivity group had better mean binocular UIVA (logMAR 0.29 vs 0.18; p = 0.09), DCIVA (logMAR 0.33 vs 0.11; p = 0.003), UNVA (logMAR 0.49 vs 0.30, p = 0.01), and DCNVA (logMAR 0.54 vs 0.29; p = 0.001).
UNASSIGNED: The AcrySof IQ Vivity is a novel, non-diffractive extended range of vision intraocular lens that provides long-term, enhanced visual acuity at intermediate and near ranges with high levels of patient satisfaction and minimal dysphotopsias.

To determine the efficacy of two myopia control contact lenses (CL) compared with a single-vision (SV) CL.
Ninety-five Chinese children with myopia, aged 7-13 years in a 1-year prospective, randomised, contralateral, cross-over clinical trial with 3 groups; bilateral SVCL (Group I); randomised, contralateral wear of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) CL and SVCL (Group II) and MiSight® CL and SVCL (Group III). In Groups II and III, CL were crossed over at the 6-month point (Stage 1) and worn for a further 6 months (Stage 2). Group I wore SVCL during both stages. At baseline and the end of each stage, cycloplegic spherical equivalent refractive error (SE) and axial length (AL) were measured. Six-monthly ΔSE/ΔAL across groups was analysed using a linear mixed model (CL type, stage, eye and eye* stage included as factors). Intra-group paired differences between eyes were determined.
In Group I, mean (SD) ΔSE/ΔAL with SVCL was -0.41 (0.28) D/0.13 (0.09) mm and -0.25 (0.27) D/0.16 (0.09) mm for stages 1 and 2, with a mean paired difference between eyes of 0.01 D/0.01 mm and 0.05 D/-0.01 mm, respectively. ΔSE/ΔAL with SVCL was similar across Groups I to III (Stage 1: p = 0.89/0.44, Stage 2: p = 0.70/ 0.64). In Groups II and III, ΔSE/ΔAL was lower with the EDOF and MiSight® CL than the contralateral SVCL in 68% to 94% of participants, and adjusted 6-month ΔSE/ΔAL with EDOF was similar to MiSight® (p = 0.49/0.56 for ΔSE/ΔAL, respectively). Discontinuations across the three groups were high, but not different between the groups (33.3%, 48.4% and 50% for Groups I to III, respectively [p = 0.19]) and most discontinuations occurred immediately after baseline.
Extended depth of focus and MiSight® CL demonstrated similar efficacy in slowing myopia. When switched from a myopia control CL to SVCL, myopia progression was similar to that observed with age-matched wearers in SVCL and not suggestive of rebound.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a novel extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) soft contact lens for myopia control in children.
METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, contralateral-eye comparison clinical trial was conducted in 72 children (40 male and 32 female) aged 9 to 14 years, with each eye randomly selected to wear either an experimental EDOF contact lens or a single-vision control lens at least 8 h per day, 5 days a week, for 52 weeks. Each contact lens was worn and then replaced daily. Measurements including best-corrected visual acuity, spherical equivalent refractive error (SER), axial length (AXL), and keratometry were performed at weeks 1, 4, and 13, and every 13 weeks thereafter for 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the change in SER, measured using cycloplegic auto-refraction. The secondary outcome measure was the change in AXL.
RESULTS: At week 52, the mean change in SER was significantly lower with the experimental lens (-0.70 ± 0.49 D) than with the control lens (-0.88 ± 0.51 D; P < .001). The mean AXL elongation was significantly lower with the experimental lens (0.34 ± 0.19 mm) than with the control lens (0.38 ± 0.19 mm; P < .001). The EDOF lens reduced AXL and myopia progression by 10.5% and 20.5%, respectively. The change in SER, but no AXL, was significantly associated with EDOF lens wear in adjusted multivariate regression analysis. Reported adverse events did not differ significantly between the two lens types.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this 1-year clinical trial demonstrate that the experimental EDOF soft contact lens slows myopia progression and reduces AXL elongation in children compared with a single-vision contact lens. (This study was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier: NCT04238897; date of registration: January 23, 2020.).

UNASSIGNED: Extended depth of focus intraocular (EDOF) IOLs form a bridge between single- and multifocal IOL design. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes obtained after implanting two different optical designs of EDOF IOLs: the Mini Well Ready (SIFI Medtech, Catania, Italy) and Tecnis Symfony (Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA).
UNASSIGNED: The retrospective observational study included 61 patients (122 eyes) who underwent bilateral implantation of the Mini Well Ready IOL (32 patients) or the Tecnis Symfony IOL (29 patients). The following preoperative and postoperative parameters were evaluated: spherical equivalent, anterior astigmatism, pupil size, monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), monocular and binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), monocular and binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA). In the 6 months postoperative period, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, photopic phenomena, and posterior capsule opacification were assessed.
UNASSIGNED: The patients receiving the Tecnis Symfony had slightly better monocular and binocular UDVA and CDVA than with the Mini Well Ready IOL, the differences were not statistically significant. Whereas the UIVA, DCIVA, UNVA, DCNVA, UNVA and DCNVA values were higher in the Mini Well Ready group, the differences were not significant. There were no significant between-group differences regarding the defocus curve for the vast majority of tested vergences. Dysphotopsias postoperatively were assessed at 6 months.
UNASSIGNED: Patients receiving both the Mini Well Ready and Symfony IOLs had excellent visual acuity outcomes and spectacle independence.

To evaluate a novel hydrophobic, non-diffractive, extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) design in comparison to two monofocal aspheric lenses.
Inclusion criteria for this prospective, monocentric cohort study were opacification of the crystalline lens and patients\' wishes for surgery. In the case of the EDOF IOL, patients asked for a presbyopia correction. All patients received surgery on both eyes. Corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity (CDVA, UCDVA), uncorrected and distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA, DCIVA) and defocus curves (all monocular and binocular) were compared three months postoperatively.
Fifty-six eyes were implanted with an EDOF IOL (LuxSmartTM, Bausch & Lomb GmbH, Berlin, Germany), 50 eyes with a monofocal aspheric IOL: 32 eyes with a clear IOL (Polylens® AS 61, Polytech Domilens, Roßdorf, Germany), 16 eyes with a yellow IOL (iSert® 251, Hoya Surgical Optics GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany). Three months postoperatively, UCDVA was comparable with the EDOF IOL, versus the monofocal IOL (P > 0.9). Binocular DCIVA in the EDOF IOL was significantly higher than in the monofocal IOL (P = 0.001). Monocular DCIVA better than 20/23 Snellen was achieved in 10% with the monofocal IOL and in 68% (P < 0.0001) with the EDOF IOL. Defocus curves showed a depth of focus at 20/23 Snellen of 1.6 vs. 0.83 diopters (D) in the EDOF IOL, vs. the monofocal IOL. No patient reported halos or starbursts in non-standardized questioning.
This non-diffractive EDOF IOL provided comparably high UCDVA and significantly higher DCIVA than the mono-focal lenses, causing only mild optical phenomena.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surface profile of a new-generation extended range-of-vision intraocular lens (IOL) and to compare it with that obtained for a monofocal IOL based on the same platform.
METHODS: Prospective, experimental, laboratory study comparing the surface profile of the DFT015 (AcrySof IQ Vivity; Alcon Laboratories, Inc.), a new-generation presbyopia-correcting IOL, with the profile of the SN60WF (AcrySof IQ; Alcon Laboratories, Inc.), an aspheric monofocal IOL based on the same platform. Raw profiles were obtained using contact profilometry. The best-fit form was then subtracted from each raw profile to highlight potential differences.
RESULTS: No significant differences were appreciated in raw profiles. On the contrary, after form removal, the new extended range-of-vision IOL showed a peculiar profile characterized by the presence of two altitudinal symmetrical changes in the order of 1 µm, localized in the central portion of the optic.
CONCLUSIONS: The new-generation extended range-of-vision IOL evaluated showed a smooth change of its surface compared to the same platform monofocal IOL. The altitudinal changes blended in the central design of the new presbyopia-correcting IOL, although micrometric, might play a crucial role in creating a continuous focal range while minimizing visual disturbances.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the objective and subjective visual outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the extended range of vision intraocular lens (EROV IOL), the Tecnis Symfony.
METHODS: This was a prospective interventional case series conducted at a tertiary eye care hospital in South India. The study included patients with bilateral implantation of EROV IOLs. The uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for distance, intermediate, and near vision was recorded at 6 weeks and 6 months\' postoperative visit. A subjective questionnaire was administered to assess spectacle independence, photic phenomenon, and overall satisfaction. All data were recorded using Microsoft Excel worksheet. The analyses were performed using SPSS for windows software.
RESULTS: Our study included fifty patients with bilateral implantation of EROV IOLs. The mean age was 59.84 ± 11.68 years. The mean uncorrected binocular distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (in standard decimal equivalent) was 0.89,0.99 and 0.99 respectively, at 6 months\' postoperative visit. Ninety-six percent of the patients did not require spectacles for distance and 98% of the patients were free from spectacles for intermediate and near vision. 94% of our patients perceived no or minimal photic phenomena such as glare and halos. The mean subjective patient satisfaction score (out of 10) for distance, intermediate, and near was 9, 10, and 9, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The EROV IOLs demonstrated high levels of spectacle independence for distance, intermediate, and near vision. The incidence of photic phenomena observed was minimal with a high level of patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the visual outcomes and ocular optical performance of the PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and Symfony extended range of vision IOL.
METHODS: Sixty-eight eyes of 34 patients were divided into 2 groups: 20 patients with the PanOptix IOL and 14 patients with the Symfony IOL. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 80 and 60 cm, and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm were evaluated. Additionally, preferred reading distance with best-corrected distance and visual acuity at that distance, binocular defocus curves, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity, photic phenomena, and monocular total higher order aberrations (HOAs) were also measured.
RESULTS: The visual outcomes for PanOptix and Symfony IOL groups, respectively, were as follows: BCDVA: -0.03 ± 0.03 and -0.02 ± 0.03 logMAR; DCIVA at 80 cm: 0.06 ± 0.06 and 0.06 ± 0.04 logMAR; DCIVA at 60 cm: 0.06 ± 0.10 and 0.05 ± 0.04 logMAR; DCNVA: 0.04 ± 0.06 and 0.20 ± 0.07 logMAR (p<0.001). Similar preferred reading distances were found for both groups (37.0 ± 4.6 and 38.9 ± 5.7 cm, respectively). The visual acuities at those distances were 0.09 ± 0.08 and 0.19 ± 0.08 logMAR (p<0.001), respectively. The defocus curves showed significantly better outcomes for the PanOptix IOL from -2.0 to -4.0 D (p<0.001). No significant differences were found for contrast sensitivity, halometry, or HOAs between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The PanOptix and Symfony IOLs showed comparable visual performance at distance and intermediate. However, the PanOptix IOL provided better near and preferred reading distance VAs and showed a more continuous range of vision than the Symfony IOL.