ESCRS - FP16.07 - Comparison Of Objective And Subjective Visual Functions Between Puresee And Vivity Edof Lenses After Refractive Lens Exchange

Comparison Of Objective And Subjective Visual Functions Between Puresee And Vivity Edof Lenses After Refractive Lens Exchange

Published 2026 - 44th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: FP16.07 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/8tyf-n344

Authors: Dr Jakub Ventruba* 1 , Dr Silvie Zapletalova 2 , A/Prof. Zuzana Hlinomazova 3 , Dr Lenka Havlickova 2 , Dr Ondrej Vlasak 1

1Lexum Eye Clinics, Optegra Group,Brno,Czech Republic, 2Lexum Eye Clinics, Optegra Group,Prague,Czech Republic, 3Lexum Eye Clinics, Optegra Group,Brno, Prague,Czech Republic

Purpose

To evaluate visual functions and subjective satisfaction in patients who underwent refractive lens exchange with implantation of PureSee and Vivity EDoF intraocular lenses.

Setting

Lexum Eye Clinics (Brno / Prague, Czech Republic), Optegra Group

Methods

Study of 110 patients (220 eyes) who underwent uncomplicated refractive lens exchange. Patients were divided into two groups: 96 eyes with Tecnis PureSee (Johnson & Johnson) with a posterior purely refractive surface and 124 eyes with AcrySof IQ Vivity (Alcon) with an anterior aspheric wavefront-shaped surface. Both groups were of similar age and had similar average preoperative spherical equivalent (SE). Two months after surgery, manifest refraction (MR), uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA) were tested. Subjective assessment of visual functions was determined using an extended standardized VF-14 questionnaire.

Results

After surgery, the average SE was -0.05 ± 0.23 D (PureSee) and -0.09 ± 0.21 D (Vivity), the average monocular UDVA was 0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR (PureSee) and 0.02 ± 0.06 logMAR (Vivity), CDVA 0.00 ± 0.01 (PureSee) and 0.00 ± 0.02 (Vivity), UIVA 0.15 ± 0.09 (PureSee) and 0.12 ± 0.08 (Vivity) and UNVA 0.19 ± 0.13 (PureSee) and 0.16 ± 0.10 (Vivity). There is no significant difference in UDVA, CDVA, UIVA and UNVA between both groups. Questionnaire results: Scores for reading small print (72 vs 57), book (87 vs 81) and fine handiwork (81 vs 73) were significantly greater for Vivity than PureSee, while the score for driving at night was better with PureSee (88 vs 77). Other VF-14 scores remained statistically non-significant for the two lenses.

Conclusions

Both lenses deliver very good distance, intermediate and functional near vision. However, Vivity achieved slightly better visual function score for reading and fine handiwork, while PureSee achieved better vision for driving at night. Both were similar in that they caused no or little unwanted optical side effects such as halos.  Both lenses require the use of low-prescription reading glasses in some cases.