Comparison Of Outcomes Utilising Mini Monovision With Two Extended Depth Of Field Intraocular Lenses
Published 2024 - 42nd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO599 | Type: Poster | DOI: 10.82333/e225-3t48
Authors: Priyanka Mandal* 1 , Niraj Mandal 2 , Richard McNeely 2 , Jonathan Moore 3
1Queen Elizabeth Hospital,Birmingham,United Kingdom, 2Cathedral Eye Clinic,Belfast,Ireland, 3Cathedral Eye Clinic,Belfast,Ireland;School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences,Queen’s University Belfast,Belfast,Ireland;College of Health and Life Sciences,Aston University,Birmingham,United Kingdom;Tianjin Medical University,Tianjin,China
Purpose
The Rayner EMV IOL and the Alcon Vivity IOL provide an extended range of focus compared to standard monofocal IOLs. The Rayner EMV IOL utilises positive spherical aberration and the Alcon Vivitry IOL uses wavefront shifting technology.
We compared the objective refractive outcomes and subjective patient reported satisfaction and visual quality after bilateral implantation of the Rayner EMV IOL to the Alcon Vivity IOL, aiming for emmetropia in the dominant eye and spherical equivalent of -0.50 dioptres in the non-dominant eye.
Setting
Two senior surgeons (NM, JM) at the Cathedral Eye Clinic, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Methods
We undertook a retrospective case review analysis of 22 patients undergoing bilateral phacoemulsification plus IOL implantation (n=44 eyes).
The Rayner EMV group (n=22 eyes) were 55% female and 45% male with a mean age of 57 +/- 8.46 years. The Alcon Vivity group (n=22 eyes) were 18% female and 82% male with a mean age of 66 +/- 8.36 years. All patients had no physical comorbidities or concurrent ocular pathology and their biometric analyses were within average limits. All patients underwent surgery between June and September 2023. Post-operative refractive outcomes and patient satisfaction quality of vision questionnaires were assessed at 3 months.
Results
81.8% of patients in the Vivity group and 95.5% of patients in the EMV group achieved a spherical equivalent refractive outcome with 0.5 dioptres of the target. This difference was not statistically significant (p>0.5).
Binocular unaided distance visual acuity and binocular unaided intermediate visual acuity was similar between groups (p=0.79 and p=0.28 respectively).
Binocular unaided near visual acuity was statistically significantly better in the Vivity group than in the EMV group, measuring 0.14 logmar and 0.25 logmar respectively (p=0.03).
Both groups reported good overall quality and satisfaction.
Conclusions
Both IOL groups utilising mini-monovision achieve comparable good binocular unaided distance visual acuity and unaided intermediate visual acuity. The Vivity group achieves statistically significant better binocular unaided near visual acuity compared to the EMV group. Patient overall satisfaction and quality of vision was similar in both groups. Studies utilising more myopic targets in the non-dominant eye are underway.