Observational study compares EDOF IOL with monofocal lenses in cataract patients, indicating good visual outcomes.
Background/Objectives: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of visual impairment in older adults and often coexists with cataracts. The indication of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) in these patients remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL (LuxSmart™) compared to a monofocal plus IOL (Tecnis Eyhance™) in cataract patients with early-stage dry AMD. Methods: In this prospective observational study, 41 patients with early-stage AMD underwent bilateral cataract surgery with either LuxSmart™ or Tecnis Eyhance™ IOL implantation, targeting postoperative emmetropia. The eye selected for analysis was the first eye scheduled for surgery. Preoperative and postoperative evaluations included high and low-contrast distance visual acuity, intermediate and near visual acuity, defocus curves, ocular light scatter (halometry), and quality of life assessment (NEI VFQ-25). Postoperative biometric accuracy and refractive outcomes were also analyzed. Results: Both IOLs showed high refractive accuracy, with 100% of eyes within ±0.50 D of target. Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.10 ± 0.06 LogMAR for Eyhance and 0.07 ± 0.02 for LuxSmart (p = 0.06). Low contrast VA at 20% was 0.22 ± 0.11 (Eyhance) and 0.26 ± 0.16 (LuxSmart) (p = 0.49). Depth of focus was approximately 1.75 D for both lenses. Light scatter (LDI) improved postoperatively in both groups with no significant differences (p = 0.54). VFQ-25 scores showed improvement in daily activities, though no changes were observed in driving or mental health domains. Conclusions: Both lenses are safe and effective options for early AMD patients undergoing cataract surgery, providing good functional vision at multiple distances
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dorronzoro-Ramírez et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: