ESCRS - POCAT446 - Is Light The Answer? A Comparison Of The Light Adjustable Lens (Rx Sight) Vs An Extended Depth Of Focus Intraocular Lens (Vivity Alcon)

Is Light The Answer? A Comparison Of The Light Adjustable Lens (Rx Sight) Vs An Extended Depth Of Focus Intraocular Lens (Vivity Alcon)

Published 2026 - 44th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: POCAT446 | Type: Poster | DOI: 10.82333/qptv-w681

Authors: Dr Brandon Rodriguez* 1

1St Lukes's Cataract & Laser Institute,Tarpon Springs,United States

Purpose

To compare the refractive results of the Light Adjustable Lens (LAL) and the Vivity Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) IOL in patients undergoing refractive cataract surgery.

Setting

Patient undergoing cataract surgery with a premium/lifestyle intraocular lens (IOL) expect to achieve reduced or complete spectacle independence after surgery. Unfortunately, there is no single lens formula that provides the refractive precision as someone who is undergoing refractive laser surgery and there is no one size fits all. This is the dilemma that every refractive cataract surgeon faces today.

Methods

This is a restrospective analysis of a total of 92 eyes in 46 total patients. 23 patients received bilateral LAL by RxSight and 23 received bilateral Vivity IOLs by Alcon. No patient had any evidence of retinal or optic nerve diseases. All patients underwent surgery for visual significant cataracts and desired to reduce, if not, eliminate their need for spectacles postoperatively. Patient that received an LAL underwent the appropriate nunmer of treatments with the Light Delivery Device (LDD). No patient that received the Vivity EDOF IOL had any LASIK/PRK correction post-operatively.

Results

100% of patients were not lost to follow up post-operatively after 6 months. 100% of patients did not have any complications.

In the LAL group, more than 34% were 6/4 and more than 82% of patients were 6/6 or better UCDVA. The average SE: -0.19D. More than 43% were J1+ UCNVA. The average SE: -0.98 D. 43.5% of LAL patients had a previous history of previous LASIK/PRK. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups.

In the Vivity group, only 4% were 6/4 and more than 73% of patients were 6/6 or better UCDVA. The average SE: -0.21D. More than 21% were J1+ UCNVA. The average SE: -0.35D. 100% of the patients had no history of LASIK/PRK.

The average LAL binocular UCDVA 6/5 and J1 UCNVA.

The average Vivity binocular UCDVA 6/6 and J1 UCNVA.

Conclusions

The LAL and Vivity EDOF IOLs are both excellent choices to help patient's achieve their goal of spectacle independence. Both achieved excellent uncorrected binocular vision. Refractively though, the LAL was similiar to mini-monovision unlike the Vivity. The LAL also proved to be an excellent option for those with a history of previous laser vision correction.