Visual Acuity, Wavefront Aberrations, and Defocus Curves With an Enhanced Monofocal and a Monofocal Intraocular Lens: A Prospective, Randomized Study

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare uniocular and binocular visual acuity, wavefront aberrations, and defocus curves using the TECNIS Eyhance (Johnson & Johnson) and RayOne (Rayner) intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, comparative study, 50 patients (100 eyes) were randomized to receive the same IOL bilaterally ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04175951). Follow-up visits were at 1 and 3 to 9 months postoperatively. Primary outcome measures were uncorrected distance (UDVA) and uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) visual acuity (logMAR) at 66 cm. Secondary outcome measures were corrected distance (CDVA) and distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA) visual acuity at 66 cm, manifest refraction, spherical (Z 4 0 ) and vertical coma (Z 3 −1 ) aberrations (total, internal eye, and corneal) at normal pupil size, defocus curves, and Catquest 9SF and Glare and Halos questionnaire on Likert scale (1 = no glare and halos and 4 = continuous). RESULTS: Uniocular UDVA ( P = .02), UIVA ( P = .02), and binocular UIVA ( P < .01) and uniocular ( P = .01) and binocular ( P < .01) DCIVA were better with the TECNIS Eyhance IOL at 3 to 9 months. At 3 to 9 months, both uniocular and binocular defocus curves were significantly broader with the TECNIS Eyhance IOL between −0.50 and −3.00 diopters (D). For total and internal eye, there was a statistically but clinically insignificant difference in Z 4 0 with the TECNIS Eyhance IOL. Rasch scores improved (TECNIS Eyhance: 2.04 ± 1.34 to 2.91 ± 0.81 and RayOne:1.61 ± 1.35 to 2.97 ± 0.16) at 3 to 9 months. Refraction, Z 3 −1 , glare, and halos were not different. CONCLUSIONS: The TECNIS Eyhance IOL provided better DCIVA and broader defocus curves than the RayOne IOL. There was no difference in CDVA or patient-reported outcomes. Although there were some differences in aberrations when measured with normal pupil size, they were not clinically significant. [ J Refract Surg . 2022;38(1):10–20.]