Visual performance and photic disturbances with diffractive and nondiffractive EDOF intraocular lenses using mini-monovision: randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To compare visual performance and photic visual disturbances of patients implanted with 2 different extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) using mini-monovision. SETTING: Ambulatory surgical center at the University of São Paulo in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. DESIGN: Prospective, examiner-masked, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Patients were assigned to either a bilateral Symfony (SYM) or Vivity (VIV) IOL group, with 1 eye targeted for myopia (-0.75 diopter [D]). Defocus curve, contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson), Patient-Reported Spectacle Independence Questionnaire, and Quality of Vision questionnaire were recorded at 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients finished the follow-up: group SYM: n = 60 and group VIV: n = 66. Regarding near visual acuity, 80% of patients in the SYM group and 84% of patients in the VIV group achieved J2 or better on the near-planned eye ( P = .3840). No significant differences were found between groups for distance visual acuity, defocus profiles, PRISC, contrast sensitivity, or reading speed ( P > .05). Notably, significant between-group differences were observed for bothersome visual disturbances ( P = .0235), with 45% of patients in the SYM group with a score of 0 for bothersome disturbances compared with 66% in the VIV group. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-monovision using these EDOF IOLs was well-tolerated in the patient cohort. No significant differences were found for visual performance tests between the VIV and SYM groups. However, the data suggest that Vivity IOL is associated with a lower probability of bothersome visual disturbances compared with Symfony IOL.

O impacto da visão monocular congênita versus adquirida na qualidade de visão autorrelatada / Impact of congenital versus acquired monocular vision as self-reported vision

Objetivos: Quando a visão de um olho está preservada (visão monocular) e há alto risco, baixo prognóstico e/ou recursos limitados para a cirurgia do olho contralateral, não é claro se o beneficio da binocularidade supera o da reorientação para visão monocular. O objetivo é quantificar o impacto da qualidade de visão referida entre a condição binocular e monocular e, nesse último caso, entre congênita e adquirida. Métodos: Pacientes com acuidade visual (AV) com AV>0,5 em cada olho foram submetidos ao questionário estruturado de 14 perguntas (VF-14), onde a pontuação de 0 a 100 indica o nível de satisfação do paciente com sua visão, variando de baixo a alto respectivamente. Dados epidemiológicos e pontuações dos quatro grupos foram registrados e submetidos à análise estatística. Resultados: A entrevista pelo VF-14 com 56 indivíduos revelou que a pontuação mais alta foi similar entre os controles e os portadores de visão monocular congênita, e níveis intermediários e baixos foram obtidos por indivíduos com visão monocular adquirida e cegos bilaterais, respectivamente (p<0,001). As atividades mais difíceis para os indivíduos com visão monocular adquirida foram identificar letras pequenas, reconhecer pessoas, distinguir sinais de trânsito e assistir TV. Conclusão: O estudo confirmou que a perda da visão tem impacto desfavorável no desempenho referido das atividades sendo maior na visão monocular adquirida do que na congênita. Os dados sugerem que medidas de reabilitação devem ser consideradas para melhorar a qualidade da visão em doenças intratáveis ou de alto risco ou de baixo prognóstico.

Purpose: When the vision in one eye is preserved (monocular vision) and there is high risk, low prognosis and/or limited resources to the fellow eye surgery, it is unclear if the benefit of binocularity outweighs the reorientation for monocular vision. The goal is to quantify the impact of the quality of vision of both binocular and monocular condition, and in this latter case, between congenital and acquired. Methods: Patients with visual acuity (VA)>0.5 in each eye underwent a structured questionnaire of 14 questions (VF-14), which the score 0-100 indicates the level of patient satisfaction with their vision, ranging from low to high respectively. Epidemiological data and scores of the four groups were recorded and analyzed statistically. Results: The interview by the VF-14 with 56 subjects revealed that the highest score was similar between controls and patients with congenital monocular vision, and low and intermediate levels were obtained by individuals with acquired monocular vision and bilaterally blind, respectively (p<0.001). The more difficult activities for individuals with acquired monocular vision were to identify small print, recognize people, to distinguish traffic lights and watch TV. Conclusion: The study confirmed that the vision loss has an adverse impact on the performance of such activities being higher in congenital than in acquired monocular vision. The data suggest that rehabilitation measures should be considered to improve the quality of vision in intractable diseases, high risk or low prognosis.

[Impact of congenital versus acquired monocular vision as self-reported vision]. / O impacto da visão monocular congênita versus adquirida na qualidade de visão autorrelatada.

PURPOSE: When the vision in one eye is preserved (monocular vision) and there is high risk, low prognosis and/or limited resources to the fellow eye surgery, it is unclear if the benefit of binocularity outweighs the reorientation for monocular vision. The goal is to quantify the impact of the quality of vision of both binocular and monocular condition, and in this latter case, between congenital and acquired. METHODS: Patients with visual acuity (VA)>0.5 in each eye underwent a structured questionnaire of 14 questions (VF-14), which the score 0-100 indicates the level of patient satisfaction with their vision, ranging from low to high respectively. Epidemiological data and scores of the four groups were recorded and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: The interview by the VF-14 with 56 subjects revealed that the highest score was similar between controls and patients with congenital monocular vision, and low and intermediate levels were obtained by individuals with acquired monocular vision and bilaterally blind, respectively (p<0.001). The more difficult activities for individuals with acquired monocular vision were to identify small print, recognize people, to distinguish traffic lights and watch TV. CONCLUSION: The study confirmed that the vision loss has an adverse impact on the performance of such activities being higher in congenital than in acquired monocular vision. The data suggest that rehabilitation measures should be considered to improve the quality of vision in intractable diseases, high risk or low prognosis.