Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Multicenter Study of a Monofocal Extended Depth of Focus IOL Compared to a Standard Aspheric Monofocal IOL.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Mark Packer, Tiago Monteiro, Cedric Schweitzer, Paul Rosen
{"title":"Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Multicenter Study of a Monofocal Extended Depth of Focus IOL Compared to a Standard Aspheric Monofocal IOL.","authors":"Mark Packer, Tiago Monteiro, Cedric Schweitzer, Paul Rosen","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Investigate safety and effectiveness of a monofocal enhanced depth of focus intraocular lens (mono-EDoF IOL, xactTM Mono-EDoFTM Model ME4) compared to an aspheric monofocal IOL (TECNIS 1-Piece IOL Model ZCB00).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Sites in United Kingdom, France, and Portugal.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective, multicenter, controlled, single-masked, randomized 2:1 (test:control) clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults ≥40 years of age with bilateral cataracts, expected post-operative refractive astigmatism of ≤1.0D and calculated lens power 18D to 30D underwent implantation of either mono-EDoF or aspheric monofocal IOL in both eyes. Primary endpoints assessed at day 120-180 included monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and visual disturbances. Secondary endpoints were monocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and monocular distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-five patients were randomized; 45 patients (95.2%) with Mono-EDoF and 20 patients (95.2%) with control completed the study. Compared with control, Mono-EDoF had significantly better monocular UDVA (P=0.0128), monocular UIVA (P<0.001), and monocular DCIVA (P<0.001). Monocular and binocular defocus curve measurements confirmed increased depth-of-focus for the Mono-EDoF compared to the control IOL by approximately 0.50D and 0.75D respectively. Contrast sensitivity measured under mesopic conditions with and without glare was similar between groups. Halo or glare was reported by 25.7% and 33.3% of patients in the Mono-EDoF group, respectively, and 22.2% and 25.0%, respectively, in the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The xact Mono-EDoF ME4 IOL is a safe and effective alternative to a monofocal IOL. It provides superior intermediate VA compared with an aspheric monofocal IOL without compromising contrast sensitivity or creating unwanted photic phenomena.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001672","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Investigate safety and effectiveness of a monofocal enhanced depth of focus intraocular lens (mono-EDoF IOL, xactTM Mono-EDoFTM Model ME4) compared to an aspheric monofocal IOL (TECNIS 1-Piece IOL Model ZCB00).

Setting: Sites in United Kingdom, France, and Portugal.

Design: Prospective, multicenter, controlled, single-masked, randomized 2:1 (test:control) clinical trial.

Methods: Adults ≥40 years of age with bilateral cataracts, expected post-operative refractive astigmatism of ≤1.0D and calculated lens power 18D to 30D underwent implantation of either mono-EDoF or aspheric monofocal IOL in both eyes. Primary endpoints assessed at day 120-180 included monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and visual disturbances. Secondary endpoints were monocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and monocular distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA).

Results: Sixty-five patients were randomized; 45 patients (95.2%) with Mono-EDoF and 20 patients (95.2%) with control completed the study. Compared with control, Mono-EDoF had significantly better monocular UDVA (P=0.0128), monocular UIVA (P<0.001), and monocular DCIVA (P<0.001). Monocular and binocular defocus curve measurements confirmed increased depth-of-focus for the Mono-EDoF compared to the control IOL by approximately 0.50D and 0.75D respectively. Contrast sensitivity measured under mesopic conditions with and without glare was similar between groups. Halo or glare was reported by 25.7% and 33.3% of patients in the Mono-EDoF group, respectively, and 22.2% and 25.0%, respectively, in the control group.

Conclusions: The xact Mono-EDoF ME4 IOL is a safe and effective alternative to a monofocal IOL. It provides superior intermediate VA compared with an aspheric monofocal IOL without compromising contrast sensitivity or creating unwanted photic phenomena.

单焦点扩展焦深度人工晶体与标准非球面单焦点人工晶体的前瞻性、随机、对照多中心研究。
目的:对比非球面单焦点人工晶状体(TECNIS 1片人工晶状体模型ZCB00)与单焦点增强深度人工晶状体(mono-EDoF IOL, xactTM Mono-EDoFTM Model ME4)的安全性和有效性。地点:英国、法国和葡萄牙。设计:前瞻性、多中心、对照、单盲、随机2:1(试验:对照)临床试验。方法:年龄≥40岁的双侧白内障患者,术后预期屈光散光≤1.0D,计算晶状体度数18D ~ 30D,分别行双眼单眼人工晶体植入术或非球面单焦点人工晶体植入术。120-180天评估的主要终点包括单眼未矫正距离视力(UDVA)和视力障碍。次要终点是单眼未矫正的中间视力(UIVA)和单眼距离矫正的中间视力(DCIVA)。结果:65例患者随机入组;45例(95.2%)Mono-EDoF患者和20例(95.2%)对照患者完成了研究。与对照组相比,Mono-EDoF的单眼UDVA (P=0.0128)、uva (P=0.0128)明显优于对照组。结论:精确的Mono-EDoF ME4人工晶状体是一种安全有效的替代单焦点人工晶状体的方法。与非球面单焦点IOL相比,它提供了优越的中间VA,而不会影响对比灵敏度或产生不需要的光现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
259
审稿时长
8.5 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (JCRS), a preeminent peer-reviewed monthly ophthalmology publication, is the official journal of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS). JCRS publishes high quality articles on all aspects of anterior segment surgery. In addition to original clinical studies, the journal features a consultation section, practical techniques, important cases, and reviews as well as basic science articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信