IMPORTANCE: This study is the first to compare the extended range of vision (ERV) intraocular lens (IOL) targeted at micro-monovision to a monofocal targeted at binocular emmetropia. BACKGROUND: Compares visual acuity, range of vision and spectacle independence in monofocal and ERV IOLs. DESIGN: Assessor-blinded retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-eight participants (176 eyes) with bilateral IOL implants at 5+ month postoperative review. METHODS: Regression analyses (general estimating equations and multiple linear regression) tested associations between IOL type (ZA9002 Tecnis 3-piece or Tecnis ZCT monofocal; and Tecnis Symfony ERV IOL) and visual acuity, adjusting for key confounders including residual astigmatism. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monocular and binocular visual acuity measured with and without distance refractive correction at distance (3.00 m), intermediate (1.00 and 0.63 m) and near (0.40 m) (logMAR units); near vision reading test used British 'N' notation; self-reported spectacle independence. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between ERV and monofocal groups in uncorrected binocular visual acuity at distance (P = 0.595). Binocular uncorrected visual acuity at intermediate (0.63 m: monofocal 0.24, ERV 0.09, P < 0.001) and near (0.40 m: monofocal 0.42, ERV 0.18, P < 0.001) were significantly better in the ERV group. Binocular uncorrected near vision: all the ERV group read N8 or better, compared to 36% in the monofocal group (P < 0.001); 93% of the ERV group reported spectacle independence at near compared to 33% in the monofocal group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The ERV IOL, targeted to achieve micro-monovision, demonstrated superior range of visual acuity and spectacle independence compared to the monofocal targeted to achieve emmetropia.
IMPORTANCE: This study is the first to compare the extended range of vision (ERV) intraocular lens (IOL) targeted at micro-monovision to a monofocal targeted at binocular emmetropia. BACKGROUND: Compares visual acuity, range of vision and spectacle independence in monofocal and ERV IOLs. DESIGN: Assessor-blinded retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-eight participants (176 eyes) with bilateral IOL implants at 5+ month postoperative review. METHODS: Regression analyses (general estimating equations and multiple linear regression) tested associations between IOL type (ZA9002 Tecnis 3-piece or Tecnis ZCT monofocal; and Tecnis Symfony ERV IOL) and visual acuity, adjusting for key confounders including residual astigmatism. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monocular and binocular visual acuity measured with and without distance refractive correction at distance (3.00 m), intermediate (1.00 and 0.63 m) and near (0.40 m) (logMAR units); near vision reading test used British 'N' notation; self-reported spectacle independence. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between ERV and monofocal groups in uncorrected binocular visual acuity at distance (P = 0.595). Binocular uncorrected visual acuity at intermediate (0.63 m: monofocal 0.24, ERV 0.09, P < 0.001) and near (0.40 m: monofocal 0.42, ERV 0.18, P < 0.001) were significantly better in the ERV group. Binocular uncorrected near vision: all the ERV group read N8 or better, compared to 36% in the monofocal group (P < 0.001); 93% of the ERV group reported spectacle independence at near compared to 33% in the monofocal group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The ERV IOL, targeted to achieve micro-monovision, demonstrated superior range of visual acuity and spectacle independence compared to the monofocal targeted to achieve emmetropia.