ESCRS - FP21.12 - Comparative Analysis Of Visual Outcomes Between Lucidis 108M (Edof) And Physiol Bvi Finevision (Diffractive) Iols Using Defocus Curve Measurements

Comparative Analysis Of Visual Outcomes Between Lucidis 108M (Edof) And Physiol Bvi Finevision (Diffractive) Iols Using Defocus Curve Measurements

Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: FP21.12 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/srkk-3z02

Authors: Moreno Piaia* 1 , Umberto Rodella 2 , Eugenio Ragazzi 3 , Laura Giurgola 2 , Claudio Gatto 2 , Jana Tothova 2 , Stefano Ferrari 4 , Diego Ponzin 4

1Veneto Eye Bank Foundation,Venice,Italy;university of Ferrara,Ferrara,Italy, 2AL.CHI.MI.A. S.R.L,Ponte San Nicolò,Italy, 3University of Padova,Padova,Italy, 4Veneto Eye Bank Foundation,Venice,Italy

Purpose

To compare the visual outcomes, defocus curve profiles, and patient satisfaction between two intraocular lenses (IOLs): EDOF (LUCIDIS 108M) and diffractive (PhySIOL BVI FineVision).

Setting

A prospective, randomized study conducted at a tertiary ophthalmology center.

Methods

Patients undergoing cataract surgery were randomly assigned to receive either the LUCIDIS 108M or the FineVision IOL. Postoperative assessments included uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity, refractive outcomes, defocus curve analysis, and validated patient satisfaction questionnaires. These questionnaires evaluated the frequency of glasses use, performance of tasks without glasses (rated on a 1-to-5 scale), and overall vision-related difficulties via the CATQUEST-9SF (rated on a 1-to-4 scale).

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Both groups achieved good visual and refractive outcomes, with similar uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), stable refractive parameters, and overlapping defocus curve profiles (all p>0.05). In addition, the frequency of glasses use was comparable between the groups. However, FineVision patients reported significantly higher satisfaction for specific activities, with better ratings for daytime driving (4.94 ± 0.24 vs. 4.29 ± 1.16, p=0.03) and TV watching (4.82 ± 0.39 vs. 4.18 ± 1.13, p=0.05). Furthermore, the CATQUEST-9SF indicated a significantly lower difficulty in performing tasks or hobbies among FineVision patients (1.03 ± 0.12 vs. 1.47 ± 0.80, p=0.03)

Conclusions

Both the LUCIDIS 108M and FineVision IOLs provided excellent visual and refractive outcomes, ensuring effective postoperative vision. Nevertheless, the FineVision IOL was associated with enhanced patient satisfaction in specific daily tasks, notably daytime driving, TV viewing, and engaging in activities or hobbies. Further research is warranted to explore the clinical implications of these differences.