Refractive and Visual Outcomes of a Monofocal Non-Constant Aberration Aspheric Intraocular Lens

Clin Ophthalmol. 2022 Aug 10:16:2521-2530. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S373587. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the refractive and visual outcomes following cataract surgery and implantation of a new monofocal non-constant aberration aspheric intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods: Ninety eyes of 86 patients who underwent implantation the CT LUCIA 621P IOL (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Main outcome measures were refractive error and monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) values. Patients were evaluated at 1-month post-surgery and intra- and post-operative complications were recorded.

Results: Eighty percent of the eyes showed a CDVA of 20/25 or better before surgery. The postoperative mean values of monocular distance Snellen decimal UDVA and CDVA were 0.64±0.22 and 0.89±0.13, respectively. All eyes showed the same or better difference between UDVA and CDVA. In relation to the postoperative spherical equivalent, the highest percentage of eyes, 31.11%, was for the range between -0.50 and -0.14D followed by 22.22% for the ±0.13D range. Ninety percent of the eyes were within ±1.00 D and 73.33% of eyes within ±0.50 D. The mean postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.18±0.55D. 37.78% and 76.67% of the eyes showed a value ≤0.50 D and ≤1.00D, respectively, being the mean postoperative refractive cylinder -0.81±0.50D. No adverse events were reported in whole sample intra and postoperatively.

Conclusion: The present study shows that cataract surgery with an monofocal non-constant aberration aspheric IOL implantation resulted in good visual performance and refractive outcomes. This lens may be considered as a valid choice for patients in a standard-routine cataract surgery practice.

Keywords: aberrations; aspheric design; cataract; intraocular lens; phacoemulsification.

Grants and funding

This study has been funded by an investigator-sponsored study from Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. Carl Zeiss did not have any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.