Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current Advances and Future of Premium IOLs

  • Ophthalmologic Surgery (R Swamy and L Schocket, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Surgery Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Advances in intraocular lens (IOL) design for cataract surgery have led to improved visual acuity outcomes and spectacle independence. There are innovative designs that have recently become available, including extended depth of focus, multifocal, and light-adjustable lens, and new technologies on the horizon such as modular IOLs. The objective of this review is to outline the current state of premium IOLs on the market and present outcome data to assess their benefits and limitations. This review will also explore premium IOLs in development.

Recent Findings

Extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs improve functional vision over a range of distances and correct for presbyopia by creating a single, elongated focus. The IC-8 (AcuFocus) uses a small aperture and provides a promising option for patients with irregular refractive states. The AcrySof Vivity (Alcon) uses a shifting wavefront to allow extended depth of focus while reducing dysphotopsias, and the Tecnis Eyhance (J&J) uses a progressive power change to improve intermediate distance visual acuity. Multifocal IOLs such as the PanOptix (Alcon) provide effective intermediate and near visual acuity but the use of diffraction results in increased photic effects. The Tecnis Synergy (J&J) combines multifocal and EDOF technology to provide a wider range of functional focus. The development of light-adjustable lens such as RxSight makes it possible to adjust lens power postoperatively using ultraviolet irradiation. Modular IOLs are a new generation of IOLs in the pipeline that have a multiple component design to enable easier optic exchange. The Juvene (LensGen) has received investigational device exemption approval from the FDA and other modular IOLs such as Harmoni and Gemini are also in development.

Summary

Innovations in IOLs are providing increased options for presbyopia correction and reducing refractive error after cataract surgery. As new IOLs are being developed to provide improved functional vision over a range of distances with minimal aberrations, patient selection remains critical to ensure improved visual outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source Open-source diagram from the American Academy of Ophthalmology EyeWiki (March 2022) [41]

Fig. 3

Source Public press release by Alcon (January 2021) [42]

Fig. 4

Source Public press release by Alcon (August 2019) [43]

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •Of importance

  1. Dick HB, Piovella M, Vukich J, Vilupuru S, Lin L, Clinical Investigators. Prospective multicenter trial of a small-aperture intraocular lens in cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(7):956–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.04.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yang LWY, Ong HS, Chiam N, Mehta JS. Centration and stability of small-aperture intraocular lens in aberrated eyes. J Refract Surg. 2022;38(2):98–105. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20211116-02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. •Ang RE. Visual performance of a small-aperture intraocular lens: first comparison of results after contralateral and bilateral implantation. J Refract Surg. 2020;36(1):12–9. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20191114-01 (Understanding visual effects of bilateral and contralateral implantation of the IC-8 IOL, including visual acuity, visual symptoms, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity and patient satisfaction).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dick HB. Small-aperture strategies for the correction of presbyopia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2019;30(4):236–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gundersen KG, Potvin R. Clinical outcomes and quality of vision associated with bilateral implantation of a wavefront shaping presbyopia correcting intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:4723–30. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S342947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. •Lopes D, Loureiro T, Carreira R, et al. Comparative evaluation of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of an advanced or conventional monofocal intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;32(1):229–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672121995343 (Assessing visual acuity outcomes and capability for intermediate distance activities for the Tecnis Eyhance IOL compared to a conventional monofocal IOL).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. de Luis Eguileor B, Martínez-Indart L, Martínez Alday N, Sacristán Egüén C, Cuadros Sánchez C. Differences in intermediate vision: monofocal intraocular lenses vs. monofocal extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Diferencias en la visión intermedia: lente intraocular monofocal vs. lente intraocular monofocal de rango extendido. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2020;95(11):523–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftal.2020.06.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Unsal U, Sabur H. Comparison of new monofocal innovative and standard monofocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(1):273–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01579-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Auffarth GU, Gerl M, Tsai L, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function in patients with cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(2):184–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cinar E, Bolu H, Erbakan G, et al. Vision outcomes with a new monofocal IOL. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(2):491–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01599-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. •Cochener B; Concerto Study Group. Clinical outcomes of a new extended range of vision intraocular lens: International Multicenter Concerto Study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(9):1268–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.06.033 (Evaluating outcomes of the Tecnis Symfony IOL for visual performance, photic phenomena, spectacle independence and patient satisfaction).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vryghem JC, Heireman S. Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:1957–65. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S44415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cochener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P, Lesieur G, Chevalier J-P, Henry J-M, David T, Lesueur L, Gatinel D, Ganem C, Blanckaert J, Van Acker E, Heireman S, Ghekiere S. Clinical outcomes with a trifocal intraocular lens: a multicenter study. J Refract Surg. 2014;30:762–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ribeiro FJ, Ferreira TB, Silva D, Matos AC, Gaspar S. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantation of a presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens that combines extended depth-of-focus and multifocal profiles. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(11):1448–53.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Shin DE, Lee H, Kim TI, Koh K. Comparison of visual results and optical quality of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: TECNIS symfony versus TECNIS synergy. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721221093024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferreira TB, Ribeiro FJ, Silva D, Matos AC, Gaspar S, Almeida S. Comparison of refractive and visual outcomes of 3 presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(3):280–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dick HB, Ang R, Corbett D, et al. Comparison of 3-month visual outcomes of a new multifocal intraocular lens versus a trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. •Calladine D, Evans JR, Shah S, Leyland M. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012:CD003169. Review of visual outcomes of multifocal IOLs compared to monofocal lenses, including visual acuity, spectacle dependence and subjective satisfaction

  19. Ravikumar S, Bradley A, Thibos LN. Chromatic aberration and polychromatic image quality with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(7):1192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.11.035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. •Modi S, Lehmann R, Maxwell A, et al. Visual and patient-reported outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens compared with those of a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(2):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.07.015 (Assessing safety and effectiveness of the Alcon PanOptix IOL, including visual acuity and frequency of visual disturbances).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Montés-Micó R, España E, Bueno I, Charman WN, Menezo JL. Visual performance with multifocal intraocular lenses: mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance and near conditions. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(1):85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00862-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Blehm C, Potvin R. Reported Patient Satisfaction and Spectacle Independence Following Bilateral Implantation of the PanOptix® Trifocal Intraocular Lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:2907–12. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S323337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kohnen T, Marchini G, Alfonso JF, et al. Innovative trifocal (quadrifocal) presbyopia-correcting IOLs: 1-year outcomes from an international multicenter study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(8):1142–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shatz AC, Potvin R. Spectacle independence and quality of vision after bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:2545–51. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S318203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. •Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C. A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):507–14. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02 (Comparing visual acuity, spectacle independence and visual symptoms of trifocal and EDOF IOLs).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Donmez O, Asena BS, Kaskaloglu M, Akova YA. Patients satisfaction and clinical outcomes of binocular implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(5):1069–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01390-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kohnen T, Lwowski C, Hinzelmann L, et al. Presbyopia correction in astigmatic eyes using a Toric trifocal intraocular lens with quadrifocal technology. J Refract Surg. 2020;36(10):638–44. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20200729-04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Spiegle S. Presbyopic IOLs in the Pipeline. Review of Ophthalmology. 2022. https://www.reviewofophthalmology.com/article/presbyopic-iols-in-the-pipeline

  29. •Dick HB, Gerste RD. Future intraocular lens technologies. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(11):206–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.12.025 (Review of recent innovations in intraocular lens technology, including presbyopia-correcting lens and light-adjustable lens).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED) P160055: Light Adjustable Lens (LAL)/Light Delivery Device (LDD). United States Food and Drug Administration. 2017.

  31. What to Expect Following Your Cataract Surgery. RxSight. Accessed online June 2022. https://www.rxsight.com/us/what-to-expect/

  32. Schojai M, Schultz T, Schulze K, Hengerer FH, Dick HB. Long-term follow-up and clinical evaluation of the light-adjustable intraocular lens implanted after cataract removal: 7-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(1):8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.08.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. MacLean KD, Werner L, Kramer GD, et al. Evaluation of stability and capsular bag opacification of a new foldable adjustable intraocular lens. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;43(7):648–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. •Ang RET, Yoo P, Liu J. Visual outcomes after optic exchange of a modular intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(11):1441–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000654 (Assessing the effectiveness of the Harmoni Modular IOL in comparison with a standard IOL implanted in the contralateral eye).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. SooHoo JR, Lane SS, Cionni RJ, Berdahl JP, Sussman GR, Kahook MY. Comparison of stability between a modular intraocular lens system and a single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(12):1821–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.09.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ang RET, Yoo P, Liu J. Evaluation of safety after optic exchange of a modular intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(10):1273–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mittal A, Garg S. What new lens technologies are on the horizon? touchRev Ophthalmol. 2021;15(1):6–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kohl JC, Werner L, Ford JR, et al. Long-term uveal and capsular biocompatibility of a new accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(12):2113–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.10.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Garg S, De Jesus MT, Laura MF, Chayet A, Barragán E, Casey P. Twelve-month clinical outcomes after implantation of a novel, modular, anterior shape-changing fluid optic intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. •Gibbons A, Ali TK, Waren DP, Donaldson KE. Causes and correction of dissatisfaction after implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1965–70. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S114890 (Understanding primary causes of patient dissatisfaction after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McMahon JF. Extended Depth of Focus IOLs. American Academy of Ophthalmology EyeWiki. March 4, 2022. https://eyewiki.aao.org/Extended_Depth_of_Focus_IOLs. Accessed 18 Aug 2022

  42. Alcon Announces Launch of AcrySof IQ Vivity, the First and Only Non-Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens in the U.S. 2021. Available at: https://www.alcon.com/media-release/alcon-announces-launch-acrysof-iq-vivity-first-and-only-non-diffractive-extended. Accessed August 18, 2022.

  43. Alcon Introduces AcrySof IQ PanOptix Trifocal IOL in the U.S., the First and Only FDA-Approved Trifocal Lens. 2019. Available at: https://investor.alcon.com/news-and-events/press-releases/news-details/2019/Alcon-Introduces-AcrySof-IQ-PanOptix-Trifocal-IOL-in-the-US-the-First-and-Only-FDA-Approved-Trifocal-Lens/default.aspx. Accessed 18 Aug 2022.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Grace Xiao

  2. The Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA

    Michael E. Sulewski & Fasika A. Woreta

Authors
  1. Grace Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael E. Sulewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fasika A. Woreta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fasika A. Woreta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest for any author.

Research Involving Human Participants or Animals

This study was a review and did not involve human participants or animals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical collection on Ophthalmologic Surgery.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiao, G., Sulewski, M.E. & Woreta, F.A. Current Advances and Future of Premium IOLs. Curr Surg Rep 10, 223–230 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-022-00333-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-022-00333-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation