Unilateral implantation of a new non-diffractive extended range-of-vision IOL in a young patient with Curschmann-Steinert myotonic dystrophy

Baur, Isabella D.; Łabuz, Grzegorz; Khoramnia, Ramin

doi:10.1016/j.ajoc.2021.101109

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although data on such patients is limited, there is at least one report of a successful outcome with the Vivity lens in a patient with myotonic dystrophy and the potential for anterior capsular contraction. 24 Patients who are willing to tolerate some unwanted visual phenomena in exchange for maximal spectacle independence may be best served by a diffractive trifocal or multifocal IOL with the potential to provide stronger reading vision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Vivity Extended Range of Vision IOL vs the PanOptix Trifocal, ReStor 2.5 Active Focus and ReStor 3.0 Multifocal Lenses: A Comparison of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Spectacle Independence

Hovanesian¹,

Jones²,

Allen³

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with the AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL or Vivity Toric IOL to those achieved with other multifocal IOLs. Patients and Methods Prospective, open-label, multicenter analysis of PROs, including spectacle independence, dysphotopsia, and overall satisfaction among patients who underwent cataract surgery at least 1 month previously with bilateral Vivity or Vivity Toric lenses (n=60). Results were compared to outcomes from two similar prospective studies of bilateral AcrySof IQ PanOptix or PanOptix Toric trifocal IOLs (n = 59), blended AcrySof ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 IOLs (n=72) or bilateral ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 D IOLs with a mini-monovision target [n = 95]). Results Patients in the Vivity cohort were significantly less likely to notice glare and halo in dim light (85% “none” or “just a little”) compared to PanOptix (69%, p<0.03), 2.5 mini-monovision (75%, p< 0.05) or 2.5/3.0 (71%, p< 0.05) patients. Complete spectacle independence for all visual activities combined (never need glasses) with Vivity was comparable to the mini-monovision and 2.5/3.0 groups (33%, 36%, and 31%, respectively) but significantly lower than in the PanOptix cohort (83%, p < 0.0001). Satisfaction was high across all groups. There were no statistically significant differences in best-corrected visual acuity, and no new safety concerns were reported. Conclusion The AcrySof IQ Vivity extended depth of focus IOL offers an expanded range of vision and better spectacle independence than has typically been achieved with traditional monofocal IOLs, with high rates of satisfaction and a favorable dysphotopsia profile compared to diffractive multifocal IOLs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Vivity Extended Range of Vision IOL vs the PanOptix Trifocal, ReStor 2.5 Active Focus and ReStor 3.0 Multifocal Lenses: A Comparison of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Spectacle Independence

Hovanesian¹,

Jones²,

Allen³

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current study, we have analysed the surface profile of a non-diffractive presbyopia-correcting IOL (DFT015), characterized by the introduction of two surface elements on its optic. Only a few data on DFT015 optical bench and clinical outcomes have been published so far due to its relatively recent introduction into clinical practice [9][10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profile of a new extended range-of-vision IOL: a laboratory study

Tognetto

Giglio

Giacinto

et al. 2021

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the surface profile of a new-generation extended range-of-vision intraocular lens (IOL) and to compare it with that obtained for a monofocal IOL based on the same platform. Methods Prospective, experimental, laboratory study comparing the surface profile of the DFT015 (AcrySof IQ Vivity; Alcon Laboratories, Inc.), a new-generation presbyopia-correcting IOL, with the profile of the SN60WF (AcrySof IQ; Alcon Laboratories, Inc.), an aspheric monofocal IOL based on the same platform. Raw profiles were obtained using contact profilometry. The best-fit form was then subtracted from each raw profile to highlight potential differences. Results No significant differences were appreciated in raw profiles. On the contrary, after form removal, the new extended range-of-vision IOL showed a peculiar profile characterized by the presence of two altitudinal symmetrical changes in the order of 1 µm, localized in the central portion of the optic. Conclusions The new-generation extended range-of-vision IOL evaluated showed a smooth change of its surface compared to the same platform monofocal IOL. The altitudinal changes blended in the central design of the new presbyopia-correcting IOL, although micrometric, might play a crucial role in creating a continuous focal range while minimizing visual disturbances.

show abstract

“…It has to be emphasized that the problem of glistenings seems to have been fully resolved by the new Clareon material introduced by Alcon, which was shown to be glistening-free in preclinical in vitro studies [32]. However, the material evaluatedhere is also still used, even in more modern IOL optics [33,34]. Hoya has also already introduced a new glistening-free material called Vivinex [35,36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of in vitro accelerated glistening formation in foldable hydrophobic intraocular lenses

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To analyse and compare the propensity to form glistenings in 4 different types of hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs): Alcon AcrySof ® MA60AC, HOYA iSert® PC-60AD, Bausch&Lomb enVista, and Kowa Avansee™ PU6A. Methods We used an accelerated laboratory method to create glistenings. IOLs were first immersed in saline at 45 °C for 24 h and then at 37 °C for 2.5 h. Microvacuole (MV) density and size were documented and calculated using an image analysis program. Results Median density of glistenings [MV/mm2] for Alcon AcrySof ® MA60AC was 623 (range 507–804), for HOYA iSert® PC-60AD 1358 (range 684–2699), for Bausch&Lomb enVista 2 (range 1–2), and for Kowa Avansee™ PU6A 1 (range 1–4). The prevailing MV size was: 0–5 µm for Hoya IOLs, 5–10 µm for Alcon IOLs, 20–50 µm for Bausch&Lomb IOLs, and 5–50 µm for Kowa IOLs. Conclusions Glistenings could be induced in all studied IOLs using the accelerated laboratory method. The Alcon AcrySof ® MA60AC and HOYA iSert® PC-60AD IOLs showed MV of high density, while the glistenings in the Hoya IOLs were smaller in size compared to the Alcon IOLs. The MV density was minimal in the Bausch&Lomb enVista and Kowa Avansee™ PU6A IOLs. The propensity of the Alcon AcrySof ® MA60AC IOLs to form glistenings in vitro correlated with the findings of clinical results that are already published.

show abstract

Unilateral implantation of a new non-diffractive extended range-of-vision IOL in a young patient with Curschmann-Steinert myotonic dystrophy

Cited by 13 publications

References 55 publications

The Vivity Extended Range of Vision IOL vs the PanOptix Trifocal, ReStor 2.5 Active Focus and ReStor 3.0 Multifocal Lenses: A Comparison of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Spectacle Independence

The Vivity Extended Range of Vision IOL vs the PanOptix Trifocal, ReStor 2.5 Active Focus and ReStor 3.0 Multifocal Lenses: A Comparison of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Spectacle Independence

Profile of a new extended range-of-vision IOL: a laboratory study

Comparative analysis of in vitro accelerated glistening formation in foldable hydrophobic intraocular lenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About