Comparative Evaluation Of Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation Of Two Advanced Monofocal Lenses: Rayone Emv Versus Envista Aspire

Published 2024 - 42nd Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: PP13.12 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/myb4-hn63

Authors: Brett P Bielory* ¹

¹Ophthalmology,New York Eye and Ear Infirmary - Mount Sinai School of Medicine,New York,United States

Purpose

New advanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) designs have been introduced with the aim of providing excellent visual acuity at distance – comparable to
conventional monofocal lenses – but increased performance at intermediate distance, without the side effects traditionally caused by multifocal IOLs. The aim of this ongoing study is to compare visual outcomes between two enhanced monofocal IOLs, the RayOne EMV (Rayner Intraocular Lenses Ltd.) and the enVista Aspire (Bausch+Lomb) lens. In addition, we wanted to test our hypothesis that near vision with a -0.5 D offset is superior with RayOne EMV lenses compared to enVista Aspire IOLs.

Setting

Private Practice Rutherford, NJ, July 2023 to February 2024

Methods

This ongoing prospective monocentric chart review includes 20 patients bilaterally implanted with either the RayOne EMV (10 patients/20 eyes; mean age: 69.6±5.5 yrs) or the enVista Aspire IOL (10 patients/20 eyes; mean age: 66.1±7.2 yrs) following cataract surgery. Target refraction was plano in the dominant and -0.5D in the non-dominant eye. Follow-up visits were performed at 1-week (1W), and 1-month (1M) postoperative. The collected parameters include: monocular uncorrected and distance-corrected visual acuities (VA) for far (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate (UIVA,DCIVA), and near distances (UNVA,DCNVA), as well manifest refraction. Intermediate and near visual acuity measurements were performed by using the Rosenbaum Near Card at 81cm and 40cm.

Results

To date, 1M results from 9 eyes per group are available. Mean monocular logMAR VAs were as follows: Distance vision was slightly better in the EMV-group (UDVA: 0.12±0.06 vs. 0.17±0.10; CDVA: 0.00±0.00 vs. 0.04±0.06). Mean UIVA was 0.27±0.17 (EMV) versus 0.43±0.31 (Aspire),

DCIVA was 0.19±0.13 (EMV) versus 0.17±0.14 (Aspire), UNVA was 0.21±0.14 (EMV) versus 0.49±0.36 (Aspire), and DCNVA was 0.12±0.10 (EMV) versus 0.16±0.12 (Aspire). Mean manifest spherical equivalent was -0.25±0.30 D (EMV) and -0.07±0.38 D (Aspire), respectively. Mean monocular UNVA in eyes targeted for -0.50D was 0.12±0.08 (EMV, n=3) and 0.38±0.36 (Aspire, n=4). The data will be tested on statistically significance differences, once more data is

available.

Conclusions

These preliminary clinical outcomes on subjects implanted with state-of-the-art advanced monofocal IOLs in a real-world setting, show very promising results in terms of restauration of distance and intermediate VAs and providing a useful near VA. The applied mini-monovision approach resulted in increased near vision in the non-dominant eye. Overall, the current outcomes show a tendency towards superior visual acuity outcomes on eyes implanted with EMV. This current finding will be statistically analyzed once data of more eyes and longer follow-up is available. It is planned to present a larger patient cohort with longer follow-up set and statistical comparisons at the conference.