Scholarlink

<p>This study compared the clinical outcomes and optical characteristics of the TECNIS Eyhance (EH; Johnson &amp; Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) enhanced monofocal and the TECNIS PureSee (PS; Johnson &amp; Johnson Vision) non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus intraocular lenses (IOLs) sharing the same platform. In this retrospective analysis of real-world data, 69 eyes from 49 patients (EH: 35 eyes; PS: 34 eyes) were evaluated for visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate, and near ranges, alongside monocular defocus curves at 3-months postoperatively. To ensure a fair comparison and optimize intermediate vision, a consistent postoperative target refraction of -0.20 to -0.30 D was set for all eyes. Generalized estimating equations accounted for intra-subject correlations. At 3-months, both IOLs provided comparable excellent distance vision and refractive predictability without significant intergroup differences in prediction error (<i>p</i> = .846) or mean absolute error (<i>p</i> = .833). However, the PS IOL delivered significantly better uncorrected intermediate (0.16 vs. 0.23 logMAR; <i>p</i> &lt; .001) and near VA (0.32 vs. 0.40 logMAR; <i>p</i> &lt; .001) than the EH IOL. In conclusion, while both IOLs offer excellent distance vision and refractive stability, the non-diffractive PS IOL provides superior intermediate and near visual performance compared to the EH IOL.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Visual function comparison of a non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus and an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens sharing the same platform

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月13日

查看全文
  • Hyeck-Soo Son,
  • Dong Gyu Na,
  • Kyungmin Koh,
  • Gerd U. Auffarth,
  • Grzegorz Łabuz

摘要

This study compared the clinical outcomes and optical characteristics of the TECNIS Eyhance (EH; Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) enhanced monofocal and the TECNIS PureSee (PS; Johnson & Johnson Vision) non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus intraocular lenses (IOLs) sharing the same platform. In this retrospective analysis of real-world data, 69 eyes from 49 patients (EH: 35 eyes; PS: 34 eyes) were evaluated for visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate, and near ranges, alongside monocular defocus curves at 3-months postoperatively. To ensure a fair comparison and optimize intermediate vision, a consistent postoperative target refraction of -0.20 to -0.30 D was set for all eyes. Generalized estimating equations accounted for intra-subject correlations. At 3-months, both IOLs provided comparable excellent distance vision and refractive predictability without significant intergroup differences in prediction error (p = .846) or mean absolute error (p = .833). However, the PS IOL delivered significantly better uncorrected intermediate (0.16 vs. 0.23 logMAR; p < .001) and near VA (0.32 vs. 0.40 logMAR; p < .001) than the EH IOL. In conclusion, while both IOLs offer excellent distance vision and refractive stability, the non-diffractive PS IOL provides superior intermediate and near visual performance compared to the EH IOL.