What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to compare patient-reported outcomes between PureSee and AcrySof Vivity intraocular lenses.

February 2, 2026Acta Ophthalmologica0 citations

Patient‐reported outcome measures after non‐diffractive extended range of field IOL implantation: PureSee versus Vivity

KKKyungmin KohKim's Eye Hospital RTRaimo Tuuminen DNDong Gyu Na

Key Points

This study aims to compare patient-reported outcomes between PureSee and AcrySof Vivity intraocular lenses.
Conducted a clinical cohort study with 85 bilaterally operated emmetropic patients.
Compared visual outcomes, dysphotopsia scores, and VF-14 questionnaire scores.
Assessed results at a 6-month follow-up.
AcrySof Vivity showed better uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuities than PureSee.
PureSee offered superior contrast sensitivity in photopic and mesopic conditions.
Dysphotopsia scores were significantly lower for PureSee compared to AcrySof Vivity.

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To perform a head‐to‐head comparison of two extended range of field intraocular lenses (IOLs) for their patient‐reported outcome measures. Setting Keye Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Design Clinical cohort study. Methods Eighty‐five emmetropic bilaterally operated patients (PureSee N = 34 vs. AcrySof Vivity N = 51) were compared for their visual outcomes, dysphotopsia (scale 0–100), and spectacle‐independent visual function index (VF)‐14 questionnaire scores at the 6‐month timepoint. Results Baseline patient and ophthalmic variables were comparable between the groups. Acrysof Vivity provided better uncorrected near (0.21 ± 0.10 vs. 0.28 ± 0.07 LogMAR units, p < 0.001) and intermediate visual acuities (0.08 ± 0.09 vs. 0.22 ± 0.08 LogMAR units, p < 0.001) compared with PureSee. In contrast, contrast sensitivities in photopic (1.57 ± 0.14 vs. 1.45 ± 0.17 LogCWeber, p = 0.024) and mesopic conditions (1.30 ± 0.12 vs. 1.19 ± 0.17 LogCWeber, p = 0.025) were greater for PureSee than Acrysof Vivity. PureSee was associated with overall mean dysphotopsia scores (1.3 ± 3.2 vs. 5.8 ± 9.3, p = 0.009) significantly less than for Acrysof Vivity. Spectacle‐independent VF‐14 scores for visual acuities at near, specifically reading small print (76.0 ± 20.0 vs. 65.9 ± 22.4, p = 0.046), newspaper or a book (94.8 ± 11.5 vs. 80.3 ± 19.5, p < 0.001), and large‐print or numbers on a telephone (88.0 ± 15.4 vs. 79.5 ± 18.2, p = 0.030) were significantly greater for Acrysof Vivity than PureSee, whereas overall mean spectacle‐independent VF‐14 scores remained statistically non‐significant for the two IOLs (92.6 ± 5.7 vs. 89.3 ± 9.7, respectively; p = 0.115). Conclusions Acrysof Vivity was associated with greater spectacle‐independent near visual acuity and visual function for reading, while PureSee outperformed in photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities, glare, starburst, and overall dysphotopsia. Based on these pros and cons, optimal extended range of field IOL selection should be aligned with the individual's needs and concerns.

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper