A systematic review of 74 optical studies shows that tolerance to decentration depends on IOL design, especially for aspheric and presbyopia-correcting optics.
In a prospective 114-eye cohort, both versions produced similar binocular vision from distance to near, while halo burden remained an important limitation.
In a nonrandomized study, EDOF and mix-and-match performed better at intermediate distance, while bifocal and mix-and-match performed better on corrected near testing.
In 85 patients, Vivity provided better uncorrected near and intermediate vision, whereas PureSee produced higher contrast sensitivity and less dysphotopsia.
In a masked randomized trial, both strategies produced good distance and intermediate vision, but mini-monovision reduced low-contrast acuity and slightly increased glare.
In a prospective series of 115 eyes, typical angle-kappa and angle-alpha values showed no clinically important association with outcomes of a nondiffractive EDOF IOL at three months.
A randomized trial compared bilateral EDF and monofocal IOL implantation: the extended-depth design improved intermediate and near vision and more often allowed near tasks without spectacles.
In a randomized masked study, 40 patients received DEN00V in one eye and AN6V in the fellow eye. Both provided extended vision at three months, while the primary endpoint favored AN6V.
In 92 patients, three EDOF approaches improved uncorrected intermediate and near vision compared with a monofocal lens, while the profile of photic phenomena differed between designs.
A randomized study of 70 cataract patients compared PanOptix with Vivity. Stereopsis favored the EDOF group at one month, while contrast sensitivity did not differ significantly between groups.