Search

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).

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical acceptability of monocular implantation of the small-aperture (IC-8) intraocular lens (IOL) in 1 eye and an aspheric monofocal IOL in the fellow eye of bilateral cataract patients over 6 months postoperatively., Setting: Twelve clinics in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Norway., Design: Prospective case series., Methods: The visual acuity, depth of focus, contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction, visual symptoms, and adverse events were assessed in patients who had bilateral cataract surgery followed by implantation of the small-aperture IOL in 1 eye and an aspheric monofocal IOL in the fellow eye. Uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were reported in Snellen notation., Results: The study comprised 105 patients. At 6 months, the UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA in eyes with the small-aperture IOL were 20/23, 20/24, and 20/30, respectively. Ninety-nine percent, 95%, and 79% of patients achieved 20/32 or better binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA, respectively. Ninety-three patients (95.9%) reported they would have the procedure again versus 4 patients (4.1%) who reported they would not have the procedure again. In eyes with the small-aperture IOL, the target-corrected defocus curve measured with 0.75 diopter (D) of myopia extended the range of functional near vision by an additional diopter without loss of distance vision compared with the distance-corrected defocus curves. The mean UIVA and UNVA remained at 20/25 and 20/32, respectively, for up to 1.5 D of residual astigmatism in eyes with the small-aperture IOL., Conclusion: The small-aperture IOL showed excellent visual performance, safety, patient satisfaction, and tolerance to residual astigmatism 6 months after implantation., (Copyright © 2017 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)