Comparative analysis of a presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens that combines extended depth-of-focus and bifocal profiles with a standard monofocal intraocular lens.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) that combines extended depth-of-focus and bifocal profiles (ZFR00: Tecnis® Synergy®, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) has been established and several studies have been reported. We attempted to compare the performance with a standard IOL (ZCB00: Tecnis® monofocal, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) manufactured using the same material from the same company, which has been extensively used worldwide. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing cataract surgery with ZCB00 or ZFR00 implantation between March 2021 and September 2021 and with available 3-month visit data were reviewed. Uncorrected near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity (VA), corrected distance VA, and optical quality were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: This study included forty-six patients (64 eyes), with twenty-one patients (32 eyes) implanted with ZCB00 and twenty-five patients (32 eyes) implanted with ZFR00. The average age of the patients was 66.0 ± 10.1 (range: 40 to 82) and 65.1 ± 4.7 (range: 59 to 77) years in the ZCB00 and ZFR00 groups, respectively. The preoperative characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Compared to the ZCB00 group, the ZFR00 group demonstrated significantly superior intermediate and near VA (p < 0.001) at 3 months postoperatively. The ZFR00 group showed significantly lower objective measured optical quality than that in the ZCB00 group. CONCLUSIONS: The ZFR00 exhibited a continuous range of vision and a smooth defocus curve, while the ZCB00 provided superior objective optical quality.

Efficacy of the Image-Guided Alignment System for a Four-Haptic Hydrophobic Monofocal Toric Intraocular Lens.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference in performance between the image-guided alignment system and the manual-marking method in the four-haptic hydrophobic monofocal toric intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent cataract surgery with a four-haptic hydrophobic monofocal toric IOL implantation between May 2020 and April 2021 and with 3-month visit data available were investigated. Toric IOL misalignment, residual astigmatism, and mean prediction errors between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: This study included 49 eyes of 44 patients (women: 68%; mean age: 67.2±7.0 [range: 47-82] years). Twenty-nine eyes of 26 patients were treated with toric IOL implantation using the image-guided system and 20 eyes of 18 patients were treated using the manual-marking method. No statistical differences were observed regarding the baseline characteristics of the two groups. Three months after the surgery, the misalignment of the toric IOL was significantly lower in the image-guided group (2.18°±0.65°, range: 1.26°-3.95°) than in the manual; marking group (4.72°±0.74°, range: 3.44°-6.21°; P <0.001). CONCLUSION: In comparison to the manual-marking method, the image-guided system reduced the misalignment of a four-haptic hydrophobic monofocal toric IOL.

Comparison of visual results and optical quality of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: TECNIS symfony versus TECNIS synergy.

PURPOSE: This study compared the extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) (ZXR00; Tecnis® Symfony®, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) and a new presbyopia-correcting IOL that combines EDOF and multifocal profiles (ZFR00; Tecnis® Synergy®, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) with the same material. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing cataract surgery with ZXR00 or ZFR00 implantation between March 2021 and July 2021 and with the data available for the 3-month visit were reviewed. The uncorrected near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity (VA), corrected distance VA, defocus curves, refractive errors (RE), optical quality parameters, and patient-reported visual performance parameters were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: Among the twenty-three enrolled patients, twelve patients (21 eyes) received ZXR00 and nine patients (17 eyes) received ZFR00. The mean age of the patients was 59.6 ± 10.6 (range: 49 to 70) and 65.2 ± 8.2 (range: 45 to 82) years in ZXR00 and ZFR00 groups, respectively, without significant difference. There was not a significant difference between the two groups in terms of baseline parameters and postoperative RE. The ZFR00 group showed markedly superior intermediate and near VA (p < 0.001 for all) at 3 months postoperatively. In terms of optical quality, ZXR00 was significantly better than ZFR00 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs had comparable distance VA. ZFR00 IOL was superior for intermediate and near visual acuity, but ZXR00 IOL was better for optical quality. Research with more participants is needed to support this finding.