Comparison Of Two Edof Designs With A Monofocal Iol—Visual Performance, Contrast Sensitivity, And Central Retinal Electrical Activity

To comparatively evaluate the effects of two extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOL) versus a conventional monofocal IOL on visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and central retinal electrical activity.

Department of Ophthalmology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Türkiye. Patients who underwent cataract surgery and received one of three intraocular lenses (IOLs) were enrolled: Group 1, AcrySof IQ Vivity (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) (15 patients, 23 eyes); Group 2, ELON (Medicontur Ltd., Zsámbék, Hungary) (14 patients, 21 eyes); and Group 3, AcrySof IQ monofocal (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) (15 patients, 21 eyes).

At 1 month postoperatively, uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA) were recorded. In the EDOF IOL groups, uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuity (UIVA and UNVA) were measured, whereas in the monofocal IOL group, intermediate and near visual acuity were assessed with correction (CIVA and CNVA). Mesopic contrast sensitivity was recorded at spatial frequencies of 6 and 12 cycles per degree (cpd). Multifocal electroretinography (mERG) was performed. The amplitude and implicit time of the central (5-10°) P1 wave were recorded.

The mean age and female-to-male ratio were comparable (p=0.078 and p=0.127). There was no difference in UDVA and CDVA between groups (p=0.703 and p=0.281). The mean UIVA in Groups 1 and 2 were 0.29±0.10 and 0.28±0.08 LogMAR (p=0.803). In Group 3, the mean CIVA was 0.31±0.09 LogMAR, with no significant difference between intermediate vision (p=0.735). The mean UNVA in Groups 1 and 2 were 0.31±0.08 and 0.30±0.09 LogMAR (p=0.930). In Group 3, mean CNVA was 0.26±0.09 LogMAR, with no difference between groups (p=0.583). Mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 and 12 cpd was similar across groups (p=0.576 and p=0.641). In mERG, there were no differences between groups in terms of central P1 wave amplitude and implicit time (p=0.099 and p=0.137).

Compared with the conventional monofocal IOL, both EDOF IOLs provided significantly better intermediate and near vision while maintaining similar distance visual acuity. The two EDOF IOLs showed comparable performance. Mesopic contrast sensitivity and central retinal electrical activity did not differ significantly among the EDOF and monofocal IOL groups.