The Vivity Extended Range of Vision IOL vs the PanOptix Trifocal, ReStor 2.5 Active Focus and ReStor 3.0 Multifocal Lenses: A Comparison of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Spectacle Independence

Figures & data

Table 1 Demographics

	2.5/3.0	2.5 Mini-Mono	PanOptix	Vivity
N (meeting criteria)	89	102	59	60
Age (yrs): Mean ± SD	72.1 ± 7.6	71 ± 8.1	69 ± 9.6	69 ± 9.9
Age range	52–99	35–91	41–100	41–99
Femtosecond laser surgery	18 (22%)	28 (27%)	52 (88%)	52 (88%)

Figure 1 Responses to the question, “How much do you notice glare or halos around lights in dim light situation?” suggest that patients implanted with Vivity IOLs were significantly less likely to notice glare and halos more than “just a little” and significantly more likely not to notice these symptoms at all compared to all other IOL cohorts. (p<0.02 vs Panoptix, p<0.03 vs 2.5/3.0 and 2.5 mini-mono, Chi squared test).

Figure 2 Frequency of spectacle use.

Table 2 Patient-Reported Spectacle Dependence (Response to the Question, “Do You Ever Need to Use Spectacles for the Following Activities?”)

	Reading	Computer	Driving	TV	Sports/Hobbies
2.5/3.0 (N=89)	60%	20%	10%	6%	3%
2.5 Mini-mono (N=101)	64%	0%	5%	2%	2%
Panoptix (N=59)	17%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Vivity (N=60)	65%	10%	0%	2%	0%

Figure 3 Satisfaction ratings of the Vivity lens were similar to other lenses among patients responding “very satisfied” or “satisfied”. Significantly more patients responded “very satisfied” to the Panoptix lens compared to all others.

Figure 4 All four groups had very good refractive accuracy. Compared to the Vivity, 2.5/3.0, and 2.5 mini-monovision cohorts, the PanOptix cohort had significantly higher refractive accuracy among patients within 0.25 and 0 diopters of emmetropia (P< 0.0001, chi-squared test for both groups).