Clinical Ophthalmology (May 2024)

Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a New Enhanced Monofocal IOL and a Conventional Monofocal IOL

  • Dell SJ,
  • Hannan SJ,
  • Venter JA,
  • Teenan D,
  • Hannan NC,
  • Raju D,
  • Berry CW,
  • Kiss HJ,
  • Schallhorn JM

Journal volume & issue
Vol. Volume 18
pp. 1157 – 1169

Abstract

Read online

Steven J Dell,1 Stephen J Hannan,2 Jan A Venter,2 David Teenan,2 Noelle C Hannan,2 Dasi Raju,2 Colin W Berry,2 Huba J Kiss,2 Julie M Schallhorn3,4 1Dell Laser Consultants, Austin, TX, USA; 2Optical Express, Glasgow, UK; 3University of California, San Francisco, Department of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, CA, USA; 4F.I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USACorrespondence: Steven J Dell, Dell Laser Consultants, 901 Mopac Expressway South, Barton Oaks Plaza IV, Suite 350, Austin, TX, 78746, USA, Email [email protected]: To compare the outcomes of the Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 IOL, designed to enhance intermediate vision, to a conventional Tecnis Monofocal ZCB00 IOL.Methods: This retrospective analysis compared two cohorts of patients undergoing lens replacement surgery with bilateral implantation of the Tecnis ICB00 or the Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (383 patients in each group). Monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA; 66cm), and near (UNVA; 40cm) visual acuities, refractive predictability, and patient-reported outcomes were compared. A sub-analysis of patients with the Eyhance IOL was performed to compare patients who achieved bilateral emmetropia to those with mini-monovision. One-month postoperative outcomes were analyzed.Results: Both groups had comparable UDVA outcomes. On average, both monocular and binocular UIVAs were approximately one Snellen line better in patients implanted with Eyhance IOL (monocular UIVA: ICB00 0.23 ± 0.18 logMAR, ZCB00 0.33 ± 0.19 logMAR; binocular UIVA: ICB00 0.18 ± 0.18 logMAR, ZCB00 0.26 ± 0.20 logMAR, p < 0.01). Likewise, the mean UNVA was also one Snellen line better with the ICB00 model (monocular UNVA: ICB00 0.51 ± 0.20 logMAR, ZCB00 0.61 ± 0.18 logMAR; binocular UNVA: ICB00 0.42 ± 0.19 logMAR, ZCB00 0.51 ± 0.22 logMAR, p < 0.01). There was no difference between the two groups in overall satisfaction or visual phenomena. A subgroup of patients who achieved mini-monovision with Eyhance IOL had, on average, one Snellen line better UIVA and UNVA compared to patients with bilateral emmetropia.Conclusion: Patients receiving the enhanced monofocal IOL had better intermediate and near vision compared to those receiving the conventional monofocal IOL, with similar levels of patient-reported photic phenomena in both groups.Keywords: enhanced monofocal IOL, Eyhance, patient-reported outcomes

Keywords