Visual Outcomes Of Tecnis Puresee™ Iol Versus Acrysof Iq Vivity Iol In An Asian Population

To evaluate and compare the visual outcomes between two different extended depth of focus intraocular lens implants (EDOF IOL) in an Asian population.

Retrospective study in a single centre in Singapore.

This is a retrospective comparative study of 49 eyes which underwent phacoemulsification surgery: 24 eyes implanted with TECNIS PureSee™ IOL and 25 eyes implanted with AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL.  Comparison of monocular distance uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA and UDVA respectively), and uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuity (UIVA and UNVA respectively) at post-operative month 6 was performed. Accuracy of mean spherical equivalent refraction to target was also compared. In addition, contrast sensitivity and defocus curves were evaluated, both monocularly and binocularly if both eyes had the same IOL implanted.

There was no significant difference between the PureSee™ and Vivity groups for mean UDVA (0.060 logMAR ± 0.100 versus 0.075 ± 0.144, p = 0.675), UIVA (0.213 logMAR ± 0.053 versus 0.184 ± 0.090, p = 0.178) and UNVA (0.379 logMAR ± 0.122 versus 0.380 logMAR ± 0.119, p = 0.977). For mean CDVA, PureSee performed significantly better (-0.020 logMAR ± 0.074 versus 0.006 logMAR ± 0.068, p <0.001). There was no significant difference the two groups for mean numerical error in accuracy of mean spherical equivalent refraction to target (0.019D ± 0.38 and -0.11D ± 0.37, p = 0.234), or in terms of contrast sensitivity outcomes monocularly or binocularly. The mean binocular defocus curves at post-operative month 6 were also similar between the 2 groups.

PureSee and Vivity have equivalent visual performances in our Asian population. Although there was a statistically significant difference in mean CDVA between the two groups, the absolute mean difference was not clinically substantial.