New generation of monofocal intraocular lens for cataract surgery in comorbid conditions

Purpose: to evaluate the functional results of using the Monofocal+ intraocular lens for cataract surgery in comorbid conditions of the eye.

Material and methods. The study included 31 patients (45 eyes) with cataracts. Patients underwent cataract phacoemulsification with implantation of ICB00 Eyhance IOL. The operation was performed on the TECNIS platform (Johnson & Johnson), based on Em, according to the Kane and Barrett Universal II formulas. Patients were divided into 3 study groups (15 eyes each) according to concomitant ocular pathology: primary open-angle glaucoma IIa, age-related macular degeneration, non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, dry form of intermediate stage. Each study group, using a retrospective analysis of data from patients operated on over the past 2 years, was divided into two control subgroups: in one of them, patients underwent implantation of a monofocal IOL (SA60AT AcrySof, Alcon), and in the other — an EDOF IOL (DFT015 AcrySof IQ Vivity, Alcon).

Results. Uncorrected visual acuity of 66 cm in patients with the Eyhance IOL was significantly higher than with the SA60AT IOL for all considered comorbid conditions (p < 0.05). Uncorrected visual acuity at near distance (33 cm) had a clear advantage in patients with the Vivity IOL compared to others (p < 0.05). The Eyhance IOL had uncorrected visual acuity of 0.23, and the SA60AT IOL had a value of 0.2. Uncorrected visual acuity at 33 cm in patients with Eyhance IOL with concomitant glaucoma was significantly higher than in patients with SA60AT IOL (p < 0.05), however, no different from those with age-related macular degeneration and non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (p>0.05). All patients with the IOL Monofocal+ expressed their satisfaction with the vision they received, which was reflected in the results of the VF test-14 QOL questionnaire.

Conclusion. New generation monofocal IOLs showed good functional results in patients with cataracts and the considered comorbid pathology of the eye: primary open-angle glaucoma II a, intermediate stage of the dry form of age-related macular degeneration, non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. There is a relatively high visual acuity at distance and at intermediate distances, and good patient satisfaction with the resulting vision. To clarify the indications and contraindications for the IOL Monofocal+ use in patients with various concomitant ophthalmopathologies more long-term clinical observations and analysis of implantations are required.

1. MacRae S, Holladay JT, Glasser A, et al. Special Report: American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force Consensus Statement for extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology. 2017; 124 (1): 139–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.039

2. Fernández J, Rocha-de-Lossada C, Zamorano-Martín F, et al. Positioning of enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses between conventional monofocal and extended depth of focus lenses: a scoping review. BMC Ophthalmol. 2023; 23 (1): 101. doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-02844-1

3. Donoso R, Torres A, Klagges J, et al. Enhanced vs conventional monofocal intraocular lens clinical results in patients with cataract: randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023; 49 (8): 818–25. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001224

4. Alarcon A, Cánovas C, Koopman B, et al. Enhancing the intermediate vision of monofocal intraocular lenses using a higher order aspheric optic. J Refract Surg. 2020; 36 (8): 520–7. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20200612-01

5. Vega F, Millán MS, Gil MA, Garzón N. Optical performance of a monofocal intraocular lens designed to extend depth of focus. J Refract Surg. 2020; 36 (9): 625–32. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20200710-01

6. Alarcon A, Canovas C, Koopman B, et al. Optical bench evaluation of the effect of pupil size in new generation monofocal intraocular lenses. BMC Ophthalmol. 2023; 23 (1): 112. doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-02839-y

7. Cinar E, Bolu H, Erbakan G, et al. Vision outcomes with a new monofocal IOL. Int Ophthalmol. 2021; 41: 491–48. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01599-8

8. Fernández-Vega-Cueto L, Madrid-Costa D, Alfonso-Bartolozzi B, et al. Optical and clinical outcomes of an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2022; 38 (3): 168–76. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20220104-01

9. Jeon S, Choi A, Kwon H. Analysis of uncorrected near visual acuity after extended depth-of-focus AcrySof® Vivity™ intraocular lens implantation. PLoS ONE. 2022; 17 (11): e0277687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277687

10. Temirov N.E., Temirov N.N. Comparative analysis of the functional results of implantation of various models of extended focus IOLs. Modern technologies in ophthalmology. 2023; 4: 165–9 (In Russ.). doi.org/10.25276/2312-4911-2023-4-165-169

11. Unsal U, Sabur H. Comparison of new monofocal innovative and standard monofocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification. Int Ophthalmol. 2021; 41 (1): 273–82. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01579-y

12. Cinar E, Bolu H, Erbakan G, et al. Vision outcomes with a new monofocal IOL. Int Ophthalmol. 2021; 41 (2): 491–8. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01599-8

13. Konovalov M.E., Morenko A.V. Medical and technical aspects of the use of intraocular lenses with extended depth of focus. Russian ophthalmological journal. 2023; 16 (3): 159–64 (In Russ.). doi: 10.21516/2072-0076-2023-16-3-159-164

14. Mencucci R, Cennamo M, Venturi D, et al. Visual outcome, optical quality, and patient satisfaction with a new monofocal IOL, enhanced for intermediate vision preliminary results. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2020; 46 (3): 378–87. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000061

15. Ferguson TJ, Wilson CW, Shafer BM, Berdahl JP, Terveen D.C. Clinical outcomes of a non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL in eyes with mild glaucoma. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2023; 17: 861–8. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S404369

16. Jeon S, Choi A, Kwon H. Clinical outcomes after implantation of extended depth-of-focus AcrySof Vivity intraocular lens in eyes with low-grade epiretinal membrane. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022; 260 (12): 3883–8. doi: 10.1007/s00417-022-05751-1