Premium Monovision versus Bilateral Myopic Monovision, Hybrid Monovision and Bilateral Trifocal Implantation: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Purpose: Contemporary monovision techniques use premium intraocular lenses (IOLs), either in both eyes or at least in the non-dominant one. Primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of premium monovision (implantation of the trifocal diffractive Panoptix IOL in the non-dominant eye and the bifocal hybrid refractive-diffractive Restor IOL in the dominant eye), against bilateral myopic monovision (implantation of the monofocal SN60WF IOL targeting −0.50 D in the dominant eye and −1.25 D myopia in the non-dominant one), hybrid monovision (implantation of Panoptix in the non-dominant eye and SN60WF in the dominant eye) and bilateral trifocal implantation (with bilateral Panoptix implantation). Methods: This is a prospective, comparative, clinic-based trial. Cataract patients populated four study groups: Monovision Group (MoG), Multifocal Lens Group (MfG), Hybrid Monovision Group (HmG) and Premium Monovision Group (PmG). Binocular Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA), Uncorrected Reading Acuity and Critical Print Size at 60cm (UIRA, UICPS) and at 40cm (UNRA, UNCPS), contrast sensitivity, vision-related functional impairment, dysphotopsia symptoms and spectacle dependence were evaluated 6 months following the operation of the second eye. A mathematical model was constructed, which calculated the relative efficacy of each surgical intervention. Results: A total of 120 participants were recruited and populated equally the study groups. Significant improvement of preoperative UDVA was observed in all study groups. No significant differences could be detected in postoperative UDVA and UIRA (p = 0.24) among study groups, while significant differences were noticed in UICPS (p = 0.04), UNRA (p = 0.02) and UNCPS (p = 0.01). Dysphotopic phenomena (glare and shadows) were significantly more in the MfG arm followed by the PmG group (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively), while perceived difficulty and spectacle independence rates were significantly better in PmG group. PmG presented the best overall relative efficacy. Conclusion: All surgical techniques present satisfactory outcomes. Premium monovision seems to demonstrate the best outcomes.