Comparison Of Visual Outcomes And Defocus Curves Between The Purely Refractive Partial Range Of Field Extended Iol Tecnis Puresee Iol And The Tecnis Monofocal Iol
Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PP22.09 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/dxbr-b639
Authors: Nader Nassiri* 1 , Kourosh Sheibani 2 , Maryam Yadgari 3 , Sara Kavousnezhad 4
1Ophthalmology,Imam Hossein Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences,Tehran,Iran, Islamic Republic Of, 2Ophthalmology,Basir Eye Health Research Center,Tehran,Iran, Islamic Republic Of, 3Ophthalmology,Imam Hossein Medical Center,Tehran,Iran, Islamic Republic Of, 4Ophthalmology,Vanak Eye Surgery Center,Tehran,Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Purpose
To evaluate and compare visual acuity (VA), refractive outcomes, and defocus curves between the purely refractive partial range of field extended (PRoF-Ex) intraocular lens (IOL) Tecnis PureSee and the partial range of field narrow (PRoF-Na) Tecnis Monofocal IOL, with a specific focus on intermediate and near vision
Setting
Prospective study conducted at Miranza COI, a specialized ophthalmology center in refractive and cataract surgery, Bilbao, Spain
Methods
The study was a prospective comparative analysis of 60 patients (30 per group), with one eye analyzed per patient, undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of one of the following intraocular lenses, TECNIS PureSee and TECNIS Monofocal IOL:
Measurements were conducted following the criteria established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Postoperative monocular assessments were conducted at 1 and 3 months, analyzingVisual acuity at distance, intermediate, and near).Defocus curves from +1.00D to -4.00D,Refractive outcomes and Photopic disturbances (halos, glare, scotomas, assessed with PRSIQv2 questionnaire).
Patient reported outcomes were assessed with the QoV and PRISQ-2 quesitonnaires.
Results
40 number of patients were available for this interim analysis. 3 post operatively no significant differences were observed between the two groups for distance CDVA, and refractive outcomes (p > 0.05). Intermediate and near distance corrected VA’s were significantly better for the PRoF-Ex group (p < 0.001).The PRoF-Ex group maintained better visual for defocus from -0.50 to -4.00D. No photopic disturbances (halos, glare, scotomas) were observed in either group. Higher scores in Tecnis PureSee for overall visual satisfaction and spectacle independence (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
The Tecnis PureSee (PRoF-Ex) IOL provides superior intermediate and near VA without compromising distance vision. The defocus curve shows greater stability in this group compared to the monofocal IOL. Despite theoretical concerns about photopic disturbances, no halos or glare were observed in either group. Data with full group will be presented at the conference
These findings support the use of PRoF-Ex IOLs in patients seeking greater spectacle independence for daily activities.