Bilateral Implantation of Two IOLs with Extended Depth of Focus (Experience of One Clinical Center)

Purpose: comparative analysis of two extended depth of focus IOLs bilateral implantation.

Patients and methods. A total of 60 patients (120 eyes) after bilateral implantation of AcrySof IQ Vivity® IOLs (n = 30, group I) (Alcon, USA) and TECNIS PureSee® (n = 30, group II) (Johnson & Johnson, USA) with an average follow-up period of 6.2 ± 1.1 (3–32) were included in the study months. In the total cohort of patients, 58.3 % (n = 35) were women and 41.7 % (n = 25) were men. The age of the patients ranged from 39 to 81 (59.4 ± 8.0) years.

Results. In both study groups, the postoperative values of UCVA and BCVA at all distances were significantly higher than before surgery (p < 0.05). For both implantable IOLs, the values at the maximum follow-up period of 3 months were comparable (p > 0.1). The results of the analysis of the defocus curve indicate the comparable effectiveness of both studied IOLs for correcting vision near, at an intermediate distance and in the distance. Under photopic conditions, the PureSee group showed significantly higher contrast sensitivity than the Vivity group at 12 cycles/deg (p < 0.05) and 18 cycles/deg (p < 0.05). Under mesopic conditions, this trend continued, and statistically significant differences were again observed at higher spatial frequencies at 18 cycles/deg (p < 0.05). 20.8 % of patients from group I had permanent or periodic optical phenomena, of which 14.2 % had glare and 6.6% had halo. In group II, 6.7 % of patients complained about halo, and 3.3 % complained about glare. None of the patients from the study groups complained of difficulty driving at dusk. The differences between the groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Conclusion. For the first time in Russia, a comparative analysis of two modern EDOF IOLs has been performed. The studied IOLs were comparable in most of the parameters studied, including uncorrected and maximally corrected visual acuity at all distances, the frequency of adverse optical phenomena, and the degree of patient satisfaction. The advantage of implanting EDOF PureSee IOLs to achieve better contrast sensitivity in photopic and mesopic conditions is shown.

1. Ribeiro F, Dick HB, Kohnen T, Findl O, Nuijts R, Cochener B, Fernández J. Evidence-based functional classification of simultaneous vision intraocular lenses: seeking a global consensus by the ESCRS Functional Vision Working Group. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2024;50(8):794–798. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001502.

2. Rampat R, Gatinel D. Multifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses in 2020. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(11):e164–e185. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.09.026.

3. Morozova TA. Extended Depth-of-Focus is a New Intraocular Lens Technology in the Treatment of Presbyopia: Review. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2024;79(4):318–326 (In Russ.). doi: 10.15690/vramn17915.

4. Pershin КB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov AYu, Kosova IV. A New Refractive Intraocular Lens with Extended Depth of Focus: the First Implantation experience. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2026;23(1):33–39 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2026-1-33-39.

5. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov AYu, Antonov EA, Kosova IV, Korneeva EA. Non-Diffractive Wavefront-Shaping Intraocular Lens with Extended Depth of Focus: First Implantation Experience. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2022;19(4):774–781 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2022-4-774-781.

6. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov AYu, Antonov EA, Kosova IV, Korneeva EA. Outcomes of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses implantation. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;140(2):40–46 (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/oftalma202414002140.

7. Fursova AZh, Atamanenko AA. Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) and Trifocal Lenses: Advantages and Disadvantages. What Determines the Choice of Optical Correction? Review. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2024;21(4):674–680 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2024-4-674-680.

8. Niknahad A, Wu Z, Son HS, Auffarth GU, Khoramnia R, Łabuz G. Evaluation of Clareon Vivity and PureSee intraocular lenses: optical quality, depth of focus and misalignment effects. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):26943. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-07970-y.

9. Koh K, Tuuminen R, Na DG, Jeon S. Patient-reported outcome measures after nondiffractive extended range of field IOL implantation: PureSee versus Vivity. Acta Ophthalmol. 2026. doi: 10.1111/aos.70076. Epub ahead of print.

10. Temirov NE, Temirov NN. Subjective complaints following implantation of various multifocal intraocular lenses. Cataractal and refractive surgery. 2015;15(1):43–48 (In Russ.).

11. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Konovalova MM, Tsygankov AYu, Konovalov ME, Temirov NE. Short Term Analysis of New Single-Piece Aspheric Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2019;16(1):19–25 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2019-1-19-25.

12. Pershin КB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov АYu, Antonov EA. First Experience of Multifocal and Toric Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses Implantation (Short-Term Analysis). Ophthalmology in Russia. 2021;18(3):408–414 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2021-3-408-414.

13. Jeong J, Kim DW, Kim Y, Kim HJ. Comparative Visual Performance and Optical Stability of Clareon Vivity and TECNIS PureSee EDoF IOLs in Cataract Patients. Clin Ophthalmol. 2026;20:602964. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S602964.

14. Kang J, Han J, Lee CM, Park N, Lee YE, Eah KS, Chung HS, Kim JY, Yeoh R, Son HS, Lee H. A Retrospective Study: Comparative Visual Performance of Two Non-Diffractive Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: TECNIS PureSee versus Clareon Vivity. Clin Ophthalmol. 2026;20:602008. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S602008.