Comparative evaluation of the clinical performance of conventional and extended depth of focus monofocal intraocular lenses (systematic review)

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

A systematic review was performed in PubMed using the following keywords “monofocal IOLs”, “monofocal IOLs with extended depth of focus (sharpness)”, “EDOF”, “cataract phacoemulsification”, “visual acuity”, and “quality of life”. Studies were selected in accordance with the criteria for prospective or retrospective studies. In a comparative analysis of clinical efficacy, the results of binocular IOL implantation and lens material from the same manufacturer were analyzed as the main sources. In total, 234 studies were analyzed using systematic review filters and authors’ knowledge of the topic. The duration of the retrospective analysis was 8 years (2017–2023). A total of 234 papers were analyzed over the last 8 years (2017–2023), further using systematic review filters and the authors’ knowledge of the topic.

Data obtained indicated that traditional monofocal IOLs acted like bifocal lenses because they formed two main focal points for far and near vision, which did not provide the required level of visual acuity at an intermediate distance. The basic optical principle of EDOF (extended depth of focus) was to create a focal point for distance vision and an elongated focal point to increase the depth of field near and at intermediate distances. The results of the literature analysis indicated that the use of EDOF (compared with monofocal IOL) was associated with a higher level of visual acuity at intermediate and near distances and comparable distance visual acuity and increased depth of field, which generally provides a more natural range of vision and less use of glasses. Light phenomena, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction were comparable among EDOF types.

Given the above advantages, EDOF implantation can be considered a variant of an individual approach to the selection of IOLs, taking into account the possibility of using it in patients whose professional activity is associated with long-term visual work at intermediate distances (e.g., users of personal computers). In the context of the role and place of EDOF in the general system of aphakia correction following cataract phacoemulsification, further accumulation of clinical material is necessary, taking into account the IOL model and patient’s professional visual activity level.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Mikhail E. Konovalov

Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Federal Scientific and Practical Center

Author for correspondence.
Email: zenina@konovalov-eye-center.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3954-6233
SPIN-code: 2302-3493

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), associate professor

Russian Federation, 91 Volokolamskoe shosse, 125310 Moscow

Alexey V. Morenko

Ophthalmological Center of the Murmansk Region

Email: m-vat@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0006-6888-5249
Russian Federation, Murmansk

Erika N. Eskina

Ophthalmological Center of the Murmansk Region

Email: erika.eskina@sfe.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7714-6196
SPIN-code: 7453-5521

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), associate professor

Russian Federation, Murmansk

Igor G. Ovechkin

Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Federal Scientific and Practical Center

Email: doctoro@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3996-1012
SPIN-code: 8074-1879

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), professor

Russian Federation, 91 Volokolamskoe shosse, 125310 Moscow

References

  1. Beltraminelli T, Rizzato A, Toniolo K, et al. Comparison of visual performances of enhanced monofocal versus standard monofocal IOLs in a mini-monovision approach. BMC Ophthalmol. 2023;23(1):170. doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-02920-6.
  2. Cinar E, Bolu H, Erbakan G, et al. Vision outcomes with a new monofocal IOL. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(2):491–498. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01599-8
  3. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Férnandez-Buenaga R, et al. Multifocal intraocular lenses: an overview. Surv Ophthalmol. 2017;62(5): 611–634. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.03.005
  4. Bai G, Li X, Zhang S, et al. Analysis of visual quality after multifocal intraocular lens implantation in post-LASIK cataract patients. Heliyon. 2023;9(5):e15720. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15720
  5. Salerno LC, Tiveron MC Jr, Alió JL. Multifocal intraocular lenses: types, outcomes, complications and how to solve them. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2017;7(4):179–184. doi: 10.4103/tjo.tjo1917
  6. Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Presbyopia: effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;68(1):124–143. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.09.004
  7. Schallhorn JM, Pantanelli SM, Lin CC, et al. Multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses for the treatment of presbyopia: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(10):1469–1482. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.03.013
  8. Albou-Ganem C. Presbyopia and refractive surgery. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2019;42(7):790–798. (In French). doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2018.08.009
  9. Rocha KM. Extended depth of focus IOLs: the next chapter in refractive technology? J Refract Surg. 2017;33(3):146–149. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20170217-01
  10. Akella SS, Juthani VV. Extended depth of focus intraocular lenses for presbyopia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29(4):318–322. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000490
  11. Kanclerz P, Toto F, Grzybowski A, Alio JL. Extended depth-of-field intraocular lenses: an update. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2020;9(3):194–202. doi: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000296
  12. Łabuz G, Son HS, Naujokaitis T, et al. Laboratory investigation of preclinical visual-quality metrics and halo-size in enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmol Ther. 2021;10(4): 1093–1104. doi: 10.1007/s40123-021-00411-9
  13. 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
  14. 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):520–527. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20200612-01
  15. 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):625–632. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20200710-01
  16. Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C. A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):507–514. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02
  17. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O, et al. Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256(10):1913–1922. doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-4052-3
  18. Escandón-García S, Ribeiro FJ, McAlinden C, et al. Through-focus vision performance and light disturbances of 3 new intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:6165493. doi: 10.1155/2018/6165493
  19. Pilger D, Homburg D, Brockmann T, et al. Clinical outcome and higher order aberrations after bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018;28(4): 425–432. doi: 10.1177/1120672118766809
  20. Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengózar-Vela A, Aramburu A, Ruiz-Santos M. Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of extended range of vision and trifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017;27(4):460–465. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000935
  21. Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-Vela A, Ruiz-Santos M. A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018;28(2): 182–187. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5001029
  22. Liu J, Dong Y, Wang Y. Efficacy and safety of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):198. doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1204-0
  23. Schallhorn JM. Multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a comparison of data from the United States Food and Drug Administration premarket approval trials. J Refract Surg. 2021;37(2):98–104. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20201111-02
  24. Wan KH, Au ACK, Kua WN, et al. Enhanced monofocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens in cataract surgery: a meta-analysis. J Refract Surg. 2022;38(8):538–546. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20220707-01
  25. Song MY, Kang KH, Lee H, et al. A comparative study of two extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Eye Contact Lens. 2022;48(10):433–438. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000931
  26. Schmid R, Fuchs C, Luedtke H, et al. Depth of focus of four novel extended range of vision intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2023;33(1):257–261. doi: 10.1177/11206721221125081
  27. Schmid R, Luedtke H, Borkenstein AF. Effect of decentration and tilt on four novel extended range of vision intraocular lenses regarding far distance. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022:11206721221128864. doi: 10.1177/11206721221128864
  28. Lee JH, Moon SY, Chung HS, et al. Clinical outcomes of a monofocal intraocular lens with enhanced intermediate function compared with an extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(1):61–66. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000710
  29. Ren X, Wang Y, Wang D, et al. A novel standardized test system to evaluate dynamic visual acuity post trifocal or monofocal intraocular lens implantation: a multicenter study. Eye (Lond). 2020;34(12): 2235–2241. doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-0780-9
  30. Wu T, Wang Y, Yu J, et al. Comparison of dynamic defocus curve on cataract patients implanting extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lens. Eye Vis (Lond). 2023;10(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s40662-022-00323-0
  31. Rampat R., Gatinel D. Multifocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses in 2020. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(11):e164–e185. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.09.026
  32. 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):139–141. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.039
  33. Moshirfar M, Ellis J, Beesley D, et al. Comparison of the visual outcomes of an extended depth-of-focus lens and a trifocal lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:3051–3063. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S321779
  34. Hogarty DT, Russell DJ, Ward BM, et al. Comparing visual acuity, range of vision and spectacle independence in the extended range of vision and monofocal intraocular lens. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46(8):854–860. doi: 10.1111/ceo.13310
  35. Monaco G, Gari M, Di Censo F, et al. Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: trifocal versus extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(6):737–747. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.03.037
  36. Chang DH, Janakiraman DP, Smith PJ, et al. Visual outcomes and safety of an extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens: results of a pivotal clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(3):288–297. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000747
  37. Corbelli E, Iuliano L, Bandello F, et al. Comparative analysis of visual outcome with 3 intraocular lenses: monofocal, enhanced monofocal, and extended depth of focus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(1):67–74. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000706
  38. Morlock R, Wirth RJ, Tally SR, et al. Patient-Reported Spectacle Independence Questionnaire (PRSIQ): development and validation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;178:101–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.03.018
  39. Reinhard T, Maier P, Böhringer D, et al. Comparison of two extended depth of focus intraocular lenses with a monofocal lens: a multi-centre randomised trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259(2):431–442. doi: 10.1007/s00417-020-04868-5
  40. Son HS, Kim SH, Auffarth GU, Choi CY. Prospective comparative study of tolerance to refractive errors after implantation of extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses with identical aspheric platform in Korean population. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):187. doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1193-z
  41. Nowik KE, Nowik K, Kanclerz P, et al. Clinical performance of extended depth of focus (edof) intraocular lenses — a retrospective comparative study of mini well ready and symfony. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;26(5):16:1613–1621. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S341698.
  42. Savini G, Balducci N, Carbonara C, et al. Functional assessment of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens. Eye (Lond). 2019;33(3):404–410. doi: 10.1038/s41433-018-0221-1

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2023 Eco-Vector



СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия  ПИ № ФС 77 - 86296 от 11.12.2023 г
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80632 от 15.03.2021 г
.



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies