title: Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes With a Monofocal and an Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lens.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes with an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL based on achromatic diffractive technology.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a prospective comparative study including 80 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the monofocal Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 30 eyes of 15 patients) or the ERV Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (ERV group: 50 eyes of 25 patients). Visual, refractive, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, ocular optical quality (Optical Quality Analysis System; Visiometrics SL, Terrassa, Spain), and quality of life (National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 Questionnaire) outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Significantly better postoperative uncorrected monocular and binocular distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were found in the ERV group (P ≥ .013). Postoperative spherical equivalent was within ±1.00 diopters in 94% and 100% of eyes in the ERV and the monofocal groups, respectively. Binocular UIVA and UNVA of 0.20 or better (Snellen 20/30) were observed in all cases in the ERV group and in 13.3% and 6.7% of eyes of the monofocal group, respectively. No significant differences among groups were observed in contrast sensitivity (P ≥ .156) or ocular optical quality parameters (P ≥ .084). In the monocular defocus curve, all visual acuities were better in the ERV group (P ≤ .002), except for the +0.50-diopter defocus level (P = .367). Significantly better scores were obtained for dependence on correction (P = .003) and suboptimal correction (P = .038) subscales in the ERV group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The extended range of vision IOL provides better distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity than the aspheric monofocal IOL, while maintaining the same level of visual quality. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(7):436-442.].
authors.forename: Emilio
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Pedrotti
authors.forename: Enrico
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Bruni
authors.forename: Erika
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Bonacci
authors.forename: Rosanna
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Badalamenti
authors.forename: Rodolfo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Mastropasqua
authors.forename: Giorgio
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Marchini
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D015350:Contrast Sensitivity / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D019654:Lens Implantation, Intraocular; D007910:Lenses, Intraocular; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D018918:Phacoemulsification; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D019591:Pseudophakia / Q000503:physiopathology*; D011788:Quality of Life; D012029:Refraction, Ocular / Q000502:physiology; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D015348:Vision, Binocular / Q000502:physiology*; D014792:Visual Acuity / Q000502:physiology