Full-Range Visual Performance And Dysphotopsia Across Three Optical Designs

To compare visual range outcomes, dysphotopsia perception, and patient satisfaction among three IOL designs: refractive spiral (Galaxy, n=88), diffractive (POD F, n=106), and segmented refractive (Vivity, n=110).

Departamento de Catarata y Refractiva, Instituto Zaldivar, Mendoza Argentina

Monocular and binocular visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA, DCNVA), cumulative visual distributions, refractive cylinder, efficacy and safety indices were assessed at 1 and 3 months. Patient-reported outcomes included overall satisfaction (0–10 scale), evening visual disturbances, and daytime and nighttime driving disturbance scores

At 3 months, mean monocular UDVA was approximately 0.00 logMAR across groups. Mean monocular DCNVA was 0.18 logMAR (Galaxy), 0.07 logMAR (POD F), and 0.30 logMAR (Vivity). Cumulative monocular UDVA ≤0.10 logMAR was achieved in 91% (Galaxy), 88% (POD F), and 83% (Vivity). Binocular CDVA ≤0.10 logMAR was achieved in >95% of eyes across groups. DCIVA ≤0.20 logMAR was achieved in 92% (Galaxy), 90% (POD F), and 85% (Vivity), while DCNVA ≤0.20 logMAR was observed in 72%, 92%, and 26%, respectively.Mean satisfaction scores at 3 months were 9.38 (Galaxy), 9.32 (POD F), and 8.95 (Vivity). Night-driving disturbance scores at 3 months were 2.14 (Galaxy), 3.17 (POD F), and 1.98 (Vivity). 

All three IOLs achieved functional full-range vision. However, dysphotopsia perception differed, with higher night-driving disturbance in the diffractive group and reduced near performance in the segmented refractive group. Optical design influences visual comfort despite comparable distance outcomes, supporting individualized lens selection.Top of Form

Bottom of Form