Comparison of visual performance between two aspheric monofocal intraocular lens models.

Clinical Relevance: It is important to distinguish between visual acuity, optical quality and quality of vision when outcomes obtained with intraocular lenses are evaluated. These parameters, that includeobjective and subjective tests, should be assessed to obtain results that are not biased.

Background: To assess the difference in visual and optical quality between two monofocal intraocular lens models.

Methods: : This was a prospective, parallel and randomised clinical study conducted at Miranza IOA, a private clinic in Madrid, Spain. Sixty patients were implanted bilaterally, 30 per group, with two aspheric IOLs with induced spherical aberration of -0.27 μm for Group A and -0.20 μm for Group B. Visual outcomes obtained at 1 and 3 months after surgery included both uncorrected (UCVA) and corrected monocular distance visual acuity (DCVA), objective scattering index (OSI), modulation transfer function (MTF) cut-off, Strehl Ratio (SR), contrast sensitivity defocus curve (CSDC), intraocular lens spherical aberration (SA), and longitudinal chromatic aberration of the eye. Activity limitations in daily life were assessed using CatQuest-9SF questionnaire.

Results: There were statistically significant differences for DCVA (0.04 LogMAR; p = .008) and SR (0.03; p = .003) between groups. Outcomes related to CSDC showed statistically significant differences for vergences between -0.50 D and +1.00 D (3 mm pupil) and for vergences of 0.00 D and +0.50 D (4.5 mm pupil) between groups. Overall, Group A showed better results regarding visual and optical quality, including a lower longitudinal chromatic aberration result in comparison to Group B. Patient satisfaction evaluated with CatQuest-9SF showed that Group A achieved better outcomes, although the differences were statistically significant only for the 'Reading text on television' item (p = 0.027).

Conclusions: Both intraocular lens models showed excellent quantity of vision, optical and visual quality as well as high patient satisfaction. Despite this, the the Group A model provided slightly better outcomes than the Group B model.