Evidence Hub

Real-World Experience with Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses Following Cataract Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Case Series

Donnenfeld E, Patel R, Patterson M, Singh IP, Tyson F, Stephenson PD

Ophthalmology and therapy, 2026

84 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The enVista Aspire (EA) and enVista Aspire Toric (ETA) lenses are monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with intermediate-optimized optics designed to broaden depth of focus. This study describes outcomes with these IOLs in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, real-world case series study included six cataract surgeons in the USA. Surgeons provided a convenience sample of ≥ 5 study IOL implantation cases and completed a retrospective experience survey. Outcomes included visual acuity (corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity [CDVA, UDVA] and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity [UIVA]), refractive outcomes, and safety (adverse events and visual changes). The surgeon survey captured IOL utilization patterns and surgeon experience as supplementary descriptive findings.

RESULTS: The analysis included 141 eyes (88 EA and 53 ETA) from 84 patients. Patients were aged 62-84 years, with postoperative follow-up ranging from approximately Days 1-6 to 4 months. At the last available postoperative visit, monocular CDVA of 20/25 or better was achieved by 97.2% of EA and 94.9% of ETA eyes; monocular UDVA of 20/25 or better by 71.3% and 84.9%, respectively; and monocular UIVA of 20/32 or better by 76.6% and 93.0%, respectively. A binocular UIVA of 20/32 or better was achieved by 100% of patients. Mean ± SD SEQ outcome was -0.06 ± 0.30 D (EA) and 0.00 ± 0.32 D (ETA). No serious adverse events were documented in the available records.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 84 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free