looks like technis eyhance is awesome. it is giving good intermediate with no rings and glare and halo. the diopter transition seems smooth. why isnt anyone going gaga over it?
it will also have no glare for folks with large pupils. being technis its will also make its way to US/CANADA.
Yes, I agree, if I were looking for a monofocal, the Eyhance would be the one I wanted to have.
But the Eyhance is a long way from the results you get with Symfony/Lara lenses, so it will not take over the premium lenses.
If you look at the defocus curve on the Eyhance compared to a Tecnis monofocal, the Eyhance is slightly more flat, with a slightly lower top end but a slightly wider range, adding +0,3 power in the midrange.
This is a great addition to the monofcal in the midrange, but a long way from the +1 the Symfony delivers over the monofocal in midrange.
Thank you so much for posting this! I was a week away from implanting a second Symfony after debating whether to go with a monofocal instead but this new Eyhance may be the happy medium. I will definitely be pursuing this with my doctor and most likely delaying my surgery and will be following this thread closely.
can you elaborate? u mean with symfony one would need +1 for intermediate and with eyhance you would need what? i dont understand the defocus curves.
how much more intermediate will you get with eyehance?
what encourages me is:
“Furthermore, in large pupil eyes the TECNIS Eyhance IOL provides significantly better contrast than other monofocal IOLs.”
the problem with symfony and large pupil is that the iol lights up where the pupil extends beyond the edge. with eyehance i hope to avoid it even if that means losing a bit more near.
i am happy to wear reading glasses. i need glasses anyway for the -0.5 astigmatism.
I will try my best 
I will insert the defocus curves below.
0.2 logmar is what we are aiming for or better, to feel we have good usable vision.
First the defocus curve for the Eyhance.
It shows you that at 0.2 logmar, the diopters of defocus is approx. 1.0 for Tecnis monofocal, and 1.3 for Eyhance, so the Eyhance adds +0,3 diopters compared to the monofocal.
And then defocus curve for Symfony.
It shows you, that at 0,2 logmar, the Symfony adds 1.0 diopters compared to the monofocal.
In theory you need +1,5 added to far vision to see at 80cm and +3 to see at 40 cm.
A monofocal also have some sort of range, so the best thing is to compare with your current Symfony lens.
If your Symfony now is good from far distance to approx. 60cm, the Eyhance in the same situation will be good from far distance to approx. 80cm, because the Eyhance is making 0,7 less power than the Symfony.
And the standart Tecnis monofocal would in the same situation be good from far distance to approx. 90 cm, the Eyhance gives you 10cm more than standart monofocal under similar conditions.
So as always, the Eyhance is not a world wonder, and a lot of hype is being made to promote it, that said I would like to have it, if I was going for monofocal, why not take all you can get.
I may have been one of the first to post about the Tecnis Eyhance.
.Looks like Danish_Viking has found some more info.It is as I expected, Tecnis Eyhance will be at a lower price point than Symfony, and will not has quite as broad a range of vision as the Symfony but will have lower risk of dysphotopsia. To the naked eye, the Eyhance lens looks the same as the Tecnis mono-focal.
I would think that if it is as good as it seems, that it could dominate the mono-focal category.It might cannibalize some sales from Tecnis Symfony, so net positive for J&J may be weakened a bit.
I don’t think it will impact the premium IOL market too much, because people who want to have good vision at near, intermediate and distance will be willing to pay extra for a premium lens, particularly since the newests premium lens seem to have less dysphotopsia.
The Tecnis Eyhance was only just released in Europe earlier this year. So knowing how these things work, it’ll likely be a few years before it comes to Canada, and then the US. Although perhaps because it’s a mono-focal, the approval process could be faster.
Hi John
From the info I have found about the Eyhance, the few places that actually present some proper numbers, it will give you approx. 10cm (4") more range into intermediate distance than a standart Tecnis monofocal lens.
Off course only you can decide, if it is worth the wait, but it will not give you anything like the Symfony.
Cheers
Christian
From the article and pdf i found on “theophtalmologist” website it sounds like it provides a lot more than 4" closer vision in real world results. From what most doctors say, a typical patient can expect to have blurry near vision out to about 5-6 feet with a monofocal, although others have posted on here that they see closer than that. Apparently many of the Eyhance subjects can play cards and read smartphones and would only need glasses for extended close reading like someone in the 50s. The big plus is it is without the nightime issues many symfony users have posted on here because it doesn’t use the diffractive optics that symfony does. Some also post on here that they like mixing monofocals with symfony because it tones down the nighttime issues so it seems like Eyhance would make that an even better option for those who don’t mind sacrificing a little near vision for improved nighttime vision. I just don’t know if I will be able to wait until it is available in the US. I will try to add the link to the article too
i would like to know where these findings are for just 4" improvement. actual patients reviews would be even more helpful.
this is what the brochure says “Eyes implanted with the TECNIS Eyhance IOL had significantly better monocular intermediate vision at 66 cm than the controls (mean TECNIS Eyhance IOL DCIVA value was 1.1 lines logMAR better than the mean DCIVA for TECNIS® Monofocal: p<0.0001), and better results were obtained for UCIVA outcomes, too.”
now what is significantly better?
“this is not a monofocal but falls more closely into the category of an EDOF IOL without any of the possible compromises”
if monofocal was 5 feet, edof was 2 feet and this lens was 3 feet. i would take it and lose the artifacts.
yes u were. for this and the 7mm iol. i want more people sharing their experience on it.
Thanks so much for explaining all that.
I have read all that stuff too about the Eyhance, but sadly it is mostly hype to promote sales, just like the Lara is hyped to be better than Symfony, but in reality, when studies are made by surgeons that are not payed by the Zeiss factory, Lara and Symfony have very similar outcome in real life
I was considering the Eyhance for myself, because it really sounded so good, that is why I have gone so much into details about that lens.
But all the hype is like gas mileage on cars, it is selling points to promote sales.
Problem with most of the info available about the Eyhance, is that it is so new, most of information available is made by the manufacturer to sell a product, with very small sample sizes with chosen patients and some few surgeons that have got a good deal from the manufacturer.
The defocus curve speaks for itself, the Eyhance only makes +0,3 diopter more than the standart Tecnis monofocal in the area with useable vision, you get what you get, I have really tried my best to explain it in my other reply in this thread.
I would have loved the Eyhance to be the game changer in iols, then I would have chosen it for myself, but sadly it is not.
If you use two of the Eyhance with monovision, with the relative same overlap as standart monocofals, you can sum up the difference and this will push the close up eye a lot into the midrange.
I am quite sure this must be how they get this stated difference at 66cm, because one Eyhance set for plano will never cover that distance, it is just not possible, that would require Eyhance should have the same range as Symfony, and it is nowhere near that.
I am really just trying to help here
Yes I tend to agree with you that most of the studies going to market ate by manufactures (much the same for drug industry too). Patients are selected carefully and wording also favoring the lens. Symfony’s night halos were very much downplayed. No mention of the huge concentric circles anywhere. Learned about them through other patients posting here. Still I do think they are a good lens and best there is at this point in time. For me I chose them anyways (I knew prior to surgery) but for others (maybe personality plays a role) they are most disappointed. Both surgeons and manufacturers should be more upfront with both pros and cons and let patient make informed choice.
I like analogy of technology - really describes things well. We buy our laptops and mobile devices based on best available at the time. Perhaps when it comes to health and in our cases vision we aren’t as accepting of limitations vs selecting a mobile device.
Soks the pupil size does affect one’s outcome significantly more and my hope is for those in that situation like you there will be a lens that addresses that. Especially as cataracts are affecting more and more people at a younger age. Myself I wonder if the sun plays a role in aging our eyes. I know it affects skin. I had surgery for skin cancer 10 years ago (thankfully I haven’t had more as my dermatologist said I had 50% case of seeing more within 2 years of my surgery. I still go in for skin exams and my dermatologist say she has patients with skin cancer in their 20s now!
Thanks again Christian for all your input - very helpful. I still read articles on cataracts and surgical procedures and lenses - admittedly some of the lingo goes over my head so really appreciate your taking the time to simplify the science and unravel the science behind the lenses. All we can do is make best choice of what there is at the time.
symfony / lara are 20/20 at 66 cm. eyhance is being called significantly better than monofocal at 66 cm. so i understand it is manufacturer word play but what is significantly better. 4 inch over monofocal would not be that great.
now if lara was 4 inch better than symfony that woukd be significant because the uncorrected range remaining for symfony is very small.
I don´t think there is any noticeable difference in Symfony and Lara, I really don´t.
And if there is, the difference is so small that hitting the target refraction will give you a much bigger difference, I think other variables are much bigger factors than choosing Lara or Symfony.
If the monofocal gives you usable vision from far distance to 100cm, you will get far distance to 90cm with Eyhance, this is what you get from the added 0,3 on the defocus curve.
At 66cm, with Eyhance in one eye only, you should have about 20/50 vision at 66cm.
With Eyhance on both eyes set for plano, you get a bonus, two eyes normally gives you one more line, that means 20/40 vision at 66cm.
20/40 is quite usable, although 20/32 is consideret what we want to feel we have sufficient vision.
A standart monofocal is about one line lower according to defocus curve in midrange.
So one standart monofocal give you 20/63 at 66cm, two monofocals give you 20/50 at 66cm.
Because of the different shapes of the defocus curves of the standart monofocal and the Eyhance, you can create almost any scenario you like to prove a specific point at a specific distance.
For a mathematic nerd it is not that hard to calculate and manipulate the numbers, and show the result you would like to show.
But no matter what, the Eyhance is a monofocal with a slightly wider range than standart monofocal, but also a little bit reduced vision at the top, you will loose at least halv a line in an eye test with the Eyhance where your vision is the absolute best, this is the price you are paying for the slightly wider range.
Your surgeon can use the wider range to suit your needs when planning monovision, but he can make almost the same with a standart monofocal. The Eyhance is not a big game changer, but a welcome improvement in the segment of monofocals.
Using the Eyhance for plano in both eyes, would be very much like using the standart monofocal for plano in both eye, not that much difference there.
If you see the text about the Eyhance, at some point they are mentioning that the Eyhance is making it easier to walk on uneven surface - I think this says a lot, this very far from what we (us premium patiens) demands from our lenses and vision
I appreciate your input from the technical perspective to help balance what some of these studies are saying. If they are using the same marketing people and trial investigators as they used for Symfony, I would be especially skeptical! I wonder if Eyhance had to go through a full trial and if so, where that information is. While it may not be a game changer, it may cause people like myself to reconsider going with this monofocal in conjunction with a symfony. These conflicting views are also what makes the IOL selection process so confusing and distressing for many patients too. My doctor was leaning towards a monofocal anyway so it will be interesting to get his take on it as well.
Since Eyhance and Symfony both are made by Tecnis, I am sure they are marketing the Eyhance in the same way as the Symfony, and are equally untrustworthy.
But this goes for all manufacturers, and since all of us only have two eyes, we really have no way of comparing all the lenses
If I was going for monofocal, I would choose the Eyhance as well, why not take what we can get, but a skilled surgeon and precise measurements are really bigger factors.
If you have the Symfony in your dominant eye now, I don´t think you will feel much difference wether you get Symfony or monofocal in the second eye, many experience that they mostly get the side effects from the dominant eye.
But let us know what your surgeon says about the Eyhance, would be interesting to from an opnion from a surgeon.