I'll compare the Vivity and PureSee intraocular lenses based on visual performance, side effects, and other key factors that could help with decision-making. I'll gather insights on aspects such as contrast sensitivity, range of vision, night vision quality, patient satisfaction, and potential risks. I'll update you once I have the findings.

Vivity vs PureSee Intraocular Lenses: A Structured Comparison

Visual Performance

Range of Vision (Distance, Intermediate, Near): Both the Alcon Vivity and J&J PureSee intraocular lenses are extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) designs that provide a broader range of clear vision than standard monofocal IOLs. They offer excellent distance vision (comparable to a monofocal) while extending focus into the intermediate range, and providing some functional near vision. In clinical trials, Vivity patients achieved distance vision around 20/20 and significantly improved intermediate vision (e.g. binocular ~20/19 at arm’s length, vs ~20/31 with a monofocal)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. PureSee likewise maintained high-quality distance acuity (100% of eyes 20/32 or better, non-inferior to monofocal) and yielded superior intermediate vision compared to an enhanced monofocal lenspmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. On average, PureSee provided about 20/25 vision at ~66 cm (versus ~20/32 with the control lens)pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, indicating a wider intermediate “sweet spot.” For near vision, both lenses give functional reading ability for medium-sized print, though very fine print may still require glasses. PureSee showed a modest but significant improvement in near acuity over a monofocal (about 20/50 at 40 cm vs 20/70 for a standard monofocal)pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, and Vivity patients likewise gained roughly 2 lines of near vision over monofocal patientspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov– sufficient for many daily tasks, though not as strong as a dedicated multifocal IOL for tiny print. In summary, both lenses deliver a continuous range from distance through intermediate, with usable near vision that greatly reduces (but may not eliminate) the need for reading glasseswww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com.

Contrast Sensitivity: A key advantage of these non-diffractive EDOF lenses is that they maintain contrast sensitivity close to that of a monofocal lens. Because they do not split light into distinct focal points (unlike multifocal IOLs), they preserve a high quality image across lighting conditions. Clinical studies of PureSee found no compromise in mesopic contrast sensitivity compared to a monofocal – its contrast performance was “on par with any aspheric monofocal IOL”pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Similarly, Vivity’s wavefront-shaping design uses all incoming light efficiently, yielding high-quality vision even in dim conditionswww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. Head-to-head evaluations indicate that modern refractive EDOF lenses (like PureSee and Vivity) have contrast sensitivity comparable to monofocals and far better than older diffractive multifocalswww.escrs.org www.escrs.org. Bottom line: Neither Vivity nor PureSee meaningfully sacrifices contrast – an important consideration for night driving and patients with coexisting eye conditions.

Night Vision Quality: Both lenses are designed for good visual performance under low-light and night conditions. Because they lack the concentric diffractive rings of multifocal IOLs, nighttime vision tends to be clearer, with minimal ghosting or loss of clarity. Surgeons report that these lenses deliver high contrast sensitivity not only in daylight but also at night, comparable to a standard monofocal IOLwww.jjvision.com www.jjvision.com. In practice, Vivity’s X-WAVE technology “stretches” the focus without splitting light, which helps maintain vision quality for tasks like night drivingwww.ophthalmologytimes.com www.ophthalmologytimes.com. PureSee’s design also shows a stable optical quality even as the pupil enlarges in the dark, indicating consistent vision across varying lightingeyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org. In low-light situations, patients with either lens can generally see distances and dashboard/intermediate details well. For example, one clinical study noted Vivity patients had no significant reduction in night-driving acuity versus monofocal patientspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Overall, both Vivity and PureSee provide reliable night vision quality, addressing a common concern with older presbyopia-correcting IOLs (which often induced night vision problems).

Side Effects (Glare, Halos, Visual Disturbances)

Glare & Halos: A major goal of both Vivity and PureSee is to minimize photic phenomena such as halos, starbursts, or glare around lights – side effects often seen with multifocal lenses. Clinical data and patient reports suggest that both lenses have low rates of bothersome glare/halos, similar to a monofocal IOL. For instance, a U.S. trial of Vivity (nondiffractive EDOF) found that moderate or severe glare occurred in ~20.8% of patients vs 7.4% with a monofocal (a small, non-significant difference), and moderate/severe halos in 16.7% vs 11.1% with monofocalpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Importantly, most Vivity patients described any halos or starbursts as mild – about 93% reported little to no trouble with such visual disturbances, comparable to monofocal experienceswww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. The PureSee lens, being a newer design, has reported extremely low halo/glare incidence: in a randomized study, only 3.4% of PureSee patients described glare, halos or starbursts as “very” or “extremely” bothersomepmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This was essentially the same as the monofocal control, and notably lower than what’s been observed with earlier EDOF or multifocal IOLspmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. In another comparison, over 90% of patients with PureSee or an enhanced monofocal said they did not notice or were only slightly bothered by halos, starbursts or glarewww.escrs.org www.escrs.org. Both lenses achieve this favorable profile by avoiding diffractive rings – no distinct “rings” means fewer light artifacts at night.

Other Visual Disturbances: Neither lens is associated with significant new visual distortions beyond glare/halo. Negative dysphotopsia (a dark shadow in peripheral vision) can occasionally occur with any IOL, but there’s no evidence that Vivity or PureSee have higher rates than standard lenses. In fact, the overall side-effect profiles in clinical trials were typical of routine cataract surgery: any adverse events (like posterior capsule opacification or transient edema) were within expected rangespmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Both IOLs feature a sharp-edged optic design to reduce PCO risk (similar to their monofocal counterparts), and use materials with proven biocompatibility. Dysphotopsia Summary: The common side effects (mild halo or glare) are infrequent and usually mild with both Vivity and PureSee. Rare complications (like significant glare, intense starbursts, or other vision disturbances) are very uncommon – on the order of only a few percent of patients – and again comparable to a monofocal lenspmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This makes both lenses a safe choice for patients concerned about night-vision artifacts. Still, if a patient is extremely sensitive or absolutely cannot tolerate any halo at all, even the low incidence with these lenses might be discussed – in such cases a pure monofocal (with glasses for near) remains the zero-halo gold standard. For the vast majority, however, Vivity and PureSee provide a near-monofocal visual experience with minimal unwanted images at night.

Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes

Spectacle Independence & Satisfaction: Patient satisfaction is generally very high with both Vivity and PureSee, driven by the expanded vision range and low incidence of side effects. In surveys, the vast majority of Vivity recipients report improved quality of life and would choose the lens again – one report noted ~93% of patients would recommend the Vivity IOL to otherswww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. PureSee is newer, but early feedback from surgeons indicates patients are “very happy” with their vision; in one ophthalmologist’s experience it “consistently delivered on expectations” of both clarity and range, resulting in highly satisfied patientswww.jjvision.com www.jjvision.com.

Clinical Outcome Measures: Objective outcomes support these high satisfaction rates. With Vivity, studies show patients achieve excellent bilateral uncorrected vision at distance and intermediate, leading to greatly reduced dependence on glasses. In a randomized trial, the nondiffractive Vivity IOL gave patients about two additional lines of vision at both intermediate and near compared to a standard monofocal lens – and consequently a much greater proportion of Vivity patients became spectacle-independent for most daily activitiespubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. For example, 88% of those with Vivity could see 20/25 or better at intermediate (computer distance) without glasses, versus only 30% of monofocal patientspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Likewise, many Vivity patients achieved functional near vision (around 20/20–20/25 binocular at ~40 cm) where monofocal patients remained around 20/30 or worsepubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. PureSee’s clinical results mirror these positive outcomes. At 6 months postoperative, distance vision was essentially identical to monofocal outcomes, with 100% of PureSee eyes reaching 20/32 or bettereyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org. At the same time, intermediate vision was markedly improved: 82% of PureSee eyes saw 20/32 or better (monocular) at 66 cm, compared to 60% with the enhanced monofocal Eyhanceeyeworldap.apacrs.org. PureSee extended the range of clear vision by about 0.7 diopters further (deeper) than the monofocal in that studyeyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org. Patient-reported outcome questionnaires also showed no trade-off in image quality – distance image clarity was rated on par with a monofocal, despite the added near benefiteyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org.

Quality of Vision: Most patients with either lens report high-quality vision across settings. In the Vivity vs monofocal trial, most patients in both groups reported only low severity of photic phenomena (underscoring that Vivity didn’t substantially worsen subjective vision quality)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Similarly, the PureSee trial found that over 95% of patients had none or only mild visual symptoms (halos, starbursts, etc.)pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, aligning with its objective finding of a monofocal-like dysphotopsia profile. These outcomes translate into tangible lifestyle improvements: many people with Vivity or PureSee lenses can drive, use computers, watch TV, and even read most print without glasses. For very fine print or prolonged reading, some patients still use reading glasses, but overall spectacle independence is high. In one study using slight “mini-monovision” (one eye focused slightly nearer), 80% of Vivity patients rarely or never needed reading glasses even for small print at 40–45 cm, and virtually 100% did not need glasses for intermediate taskswww.escrs.org www.escrs.org. While that study was a specific strategy, it highlights that patient satisfaction can be further optimized by customization. In summary, both Vivity and PureSee demonstrate excellent clinical outcomes – high rates of 20/20 or 20/25 vision at key distances – and correspondingly high patient satisfaction and quality-of-life improvements, with minimal complaints.

Lens Design and Material (Technological Differences)

Optical Design: Despite similar goals, Vivity and PureSee use different proprietary technologies to extend depth of focus. Alcon Vivity was the first non-diffractive EDOF IOL; it employs wavefront-shaping X-WAVE™ technology on the lens optic. This design features two step-like surface transitions that “stretch and shift” the incoming light without splitting it into multiple focal pointswww.ophthalmologytimes.com www.ophthalmologytimes.com. In essence, Vivity’s optic creates an elongated focal range by manipulating the wavefront phase – extending focus ~1.5–2.0 diopters for intermediate/near while preserving a single elongated focal zone. Notably, this does not rely on concentric diffractive rings or multifocal zones, which is why Vivity has a smooth visual experience similar to a monofocal. The technology does not induce additional spherical aberration either, meaning it keeps image quality high and is forgiving of slight focus misseswww.ophthalmologytimes.com www.ophthalmologytimes.com. On optical bench testing, Vivity’s wavefront shaping delivers roughly a +2.00 to +2.50 diopter “add” power without significant loss of image quality, thereby achieving functional near vision in most patientspmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

PureSee’s Technology: The J&J Tecnis PureSee is a “purely refractive” EDOF lens – it uses Continuous Power Technology (a proprietary refractive surface design) instead of diffractive optics. The front surface of PureSee is aspheric to correct corneal spherical aberration (same as Tecnis monofocals), while the back surface has a smooth continuous power gradient that progressively increases from the periphery toward the centerpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This creates a seamless, elongated focus from distance through near, rather than discrete focal zoneseyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org. Dr. Tim Roberts (an investigator) described it as an “elongated posterior surface” that provides progressive focusing from distance to intermediate to near – with no distinct transition zones, just a smooth continuumeyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org. The result is uninterrupted vision across ranges and a dysphotopsia profile comparable to a monofocaleyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org. In design terms, PureSee can be thought of as an evolution of the “enhanced monofocal” (like Tecnis Eyhance) concept, but with a greater magnitude of power gradient to give more near focus. Optical bench analyses indicate PureSee has a very flat defocus curve – meaning it maintains relatively sharp focus from far to near without big dropswww.escrs.org www.escrs.org. Additionally, PureSee was noted to retain a stable modulation transfer function (MTF) even with larger pupils, whereas some EDOF lenses show more MTF drop as pupils dilateeyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org. This suggests PureSee’s optical quality is robust under nighttime pupil conditions.

Materials and Light Filtering: Both lenses are made of advanced hydrophobic acrylic, but from different proprietary families:

Vivity: Built on Alcon’s AcrySof/Clareon platform. The AcrySof IQ Vivity has a slightly yellow-tinted material that filters UV and high-energy blue lightwww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com(similar to Alcon’s monofocals), whereas the newer Clareon Vivity version uses a clearer acrylic with UV protection (Alcon’s latest material with minimal glistening). The built-in blue-light filter in AcrySof is intended to mimic the natural crystalline lens and may reduce chromatic aberration and retinal blue light exposure.
PureSee: Uses Johnson & Johnson’s SENSAR® OptiBlue materialpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This is a UV-blocking hydrophobic acrylic with an added violet-light filter (OptiBlue) that attenuates wavelengths around 400–440 nm. The violet filtering is designed to reduce chromatic aberration and potential halos from shorter wavelengths, while maintaining a clear appearance (it’s less yellow than Alcon’s filter). This material has a long track record in Tecnis lenses, known for very low glistenings and excellent clarity. Both lenses have a squared-edge design to reduce PCO, and both are 1-piece acrylics intended for capsular bag implantation. Toric and Other Variants: In terms of product range, Alcon offers Vivity in toric versions for astigmatism correction (the “Vivity Toric”), addressing corneal astigmatism with the same EDOF benefitswww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. Johnson & Johnson is expected to provide toric versions of PureSee as well (given their Tecnis platform has toric designs), although at launch (2024 in EMEA) the details of toric availability were not widely publicized. Aside from that, both lenses come in a range of powers to suit different eye lengths, and both are compatible with standard cataract surgery techniques. Summary of Design: Vivity = non-diffractive wavefront shaping (light stretching) technology, PureSee = continuous power refractive (progressive) optics. Both approaches achieve a similar outcome: extended focus without rings, yielding high contrast and minimal halos. There is no head-to-head clinical study yet, but their performance appears comparable; any minor differences in optical strategy likely have minimal practical distinction for patients.

Considerations for Different Patient Needs

Cataract Patients Seeking Presbyopia Correction: Vivity and PureSee are primarily intended for cataract surgery patients who want to reduce their dependence on glasses at all distances. Traditionally, monofocal IOLs leave such patients needing reading glasses; multifocal IOLs provide near vision but at the cost of halos and contrast loss. These new EDOF lenses offer a middle-ground, making them very attractive for many cataract patients. For a typical cataract patient with otherwise healthy eyes, both Vivity and PureSee can provide a full range of vision (distance to near) with minimal downsides, greatly increasing post-surgery independence. Patients with active lifestyles who desire good vision for tasks like driving, computer work, and occasional reading often find these lenses ideal. They are also a good choice for patients who expressed hesitancy about multifocal lenses after learning about halos – with Vivity/PureSee, the compromise of a little less near vision in exchange for fewer halos often aligns well with patient preferencespmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. It’s important to set expectations: most daily activities can be glasses-free, but very small print may still require readers. Surgeons often counsel cataract patients that if achieving the absolute best near vision is a priority (e.g. reading tiny text or sewing for hours), a trifocal might be considered – but the patient must be willing to accept more halos and reduced night visionpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. In many cases, patients prefer the balanced approach of Vivity/PureSee.

Presbyopia in Non-Cataract Patients: These lenses can also be used in refractive lens exchange (RLE) for presbyopic patients who don’t yet have cataracts. A patient in their late 40s to 60s with presbyopia and perhaps a desire to eliminate glasses could elect to have a clear lens extraction and an EDOF IOL implanted. Vivity has indeed been used for RLE to correct presbyopia. PureSee, being new, will likely be used similarly. The considerations here include the patient’s age, refractive error, and tolerance for surgery. Because RLE is invasive, it’s generally reserved for older presbyopes or those who also have significant hyperopia or early cataracts. For a highly myopic presbyope or someone in their 40s, corneal procedures or implantable contact lenses might be alternatives to consider before lens extraction. If RLE is chosen, Vivity and PureSee offer an appealing option: they correct presbyopia with much lower risk of glare/halo than multifocal IOLs, which is important for still-working individuals, drivers, etc. The outcomes in an RLE scenario are expected to mirror those in cataract (since it’s the same surgery without the cloudy lens). Thus, a presbyope could achieve spectacle independence for distance and intermediate, with minor use of readers for fine near tasks – often a welcome outcome.Patients with Ocular Comorbidities: A significant benefit of these non-diffractive EDOF lenses is their suitability for patients with mild coexisting eye conditions that might make multifocal IOLs risky. For example, patients with early glaucoma, mild macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, or corneal irregularities often are not good candidates for multifocal IOLs because reduced contrast or halos could further impair their already compromised vision. EDOF lenses like Vivity and PureSee, however, maintain high contrast and have minimal photic phenomena, so they can be considered in eyes with mild pathologywww.escrs.org www.escrs.org. As Dr. Francesco Carones noted, these lenses expand the pool of candidates – they can be used in cases where night vision issues would rule out a multifocalwww.escrs.org www.escrs.org. For instance, a patient with early glaucoma (which can reduce contrast sensitivity) would be safer with Vivity/PureSee than a trifocal, preserving as much contrast as possible. Likewise, someone with minor ocular surface disease or irregular corneal astigmatism may tolerate a refractive EDOF better than a diffractive design. It’s worth saying that if a patient has moderate or severe ocular disease (advanced macular degeneration, advanced glaucoma, etc.), typically a premium lens isn’t recommended at all – often a monofocal is chosen to maximize remaining quality of vision. But in mild cases, these EDOFs are emerging as a preferred choice to still give some range of vision without jeopardizing overall quality.

Night Drivers and High-Demand Patients: Patients who frequently drive at night, such as truck drivers or pilots, often shy away from multifocal lenses due to halos. Vivity and PureSee are well-suited to these individuals because of their low dysphotopsia profile. If crisp night vision is paramount, these lenses come very close to monofocal performance at nightwww.jjvision.com www.jjvision.com. In fact, many surgeons specifically recommend non-diffractive EDOFs for patients who have high demands for nighttime clarity or those who are very critical of visual distortions. The minimal trade-off is that such patients might need glasses for very fine near tasks, but often they consider that an acceptable compromise for pristine night vision.

Astigmatism and Refractive Considerations: If a patient has significant astigmatism, a toric version of the lens is needed to correct it; uncorrected astigmatism can blur the extended focus benefit. Vivity Toric is readily available for this purposewww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. PureSee will likely have a toric model (given J&J’s Tecnis toric line), but if not immediately available, surgeons might pair a PureSee with corneal astigmatism correction (like limbal relaxing incisions or LASIK touch-up). Refractive targeting is another consideration: Both lenses are forgiving of small refractive errors (they still give functional vision if you end up a little off target, thanks to the extended depth)eyeworldap.apacrs.org eyeworldap.apacrs.org. However, surgeons aim for precise biometry. Some surgeons may intentionally target one eye slightly myopic (e.g. -0.5 D) to further enhance near vision – this mini-monovision strategy can maximize spectacle independence and works well with EDOF lenseswww.escrs.org www.escrs.org. Patients with EDOF mini-monovision often achieve near vision approaching trifocal performance with virtually no increase in halos, as demonstrated in clinical studieswww.escrs.org www.escrs.org. This approach is tailored for patients who express a strong desire to be glasses-free for reading as well, and it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Special Cases: Patients who have had previous refractive surgery (like LASIK/PRK) can still consider these lenses. In fact, many surgeons prefer an EDOF like Vivity/PureSee over a multifocal in post-LASIK eyes, because corneal surgery can cause aberrations that combined with diffractive rings might worsen visual quality. The smoother focus of an EDOF tends to be more tolerant of slight irregularities. Additionally, patients with one eye already done (e.g. if a patient has a monofocal or an EDOF in the first eye) might decide what to do in the second eye based on first-eye results. There isn’t a problem mixing a Vivity in one eye and PureSee in the other (no contraindication), but since PureSee is new, most surgeons would either use the same lens in both eyes or stick within the same category. Age considerations: Extremely young presbyopic patients (40s) might be cautioned that a lens implant is permanent and carries some surgical risk (such as retinal detachment in very high myopes). Those patients need careful counseling. But for the typical age group (50s-70s), both Vivity and PureSee represent state-of-the-art options to treat cataracts and presbyopia simultaneously, with a balance of clear vision and minimal side effects.

Cost and Availability

Cost: Both Vivity and PureSee are premium presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses, which means they come at an additional cost compared to standard monofocal IOLs. In many healthcare systems (e.g. the United States), insurance or Medicare covers only the basic cataract surgery with a monofocal lens, and choosing a premium lens like Vivity or PureSee incurs an out-of-pocket fee. The exact cost varies by provider and region. In the U.S., the Vivity lens typically adds about $2,500 to$ n3,200 per eye to the procedure costwww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. This fee often includes the lens itself and sometimes extra postoperative care or enhancements. PureSee’s pricing is expected to be in a similar range, as premium IOLs are generally priced comparably. Since PureSee is very new, specific price data aren’t widely published, but patients should anticipate a comparable premium cost if choosing PureSee. In private European clinics, premium IOL surcharges can also be a few thousand Euros per eye. It’s worth noting that from a patient perspective, both lenses represent a significant investment – however, many find the reduced dependence on glasses (and avoidance of future LASIK or contact lens costs) to be worth itwww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. Both Alcon and J&J sometimes offer rebate programs or package pricing via surgical centers, but generally these lenses are among the higher-end options.

Availability: Alcon Vivity was approved and launched a few years earlier, so it is widely available worldwide. It received FDA approval in the U.S. around 2020 and has since seen extensive adoption (over 1 million implants globally by early 2024)www.ophthalmologytimes.com www.ophthalmologytimes.com. Vivity (including its toric variants) is offered by many cataract surgeons across North America, Europe, Asia, and other regions as part of their premium lens portfolio. Tecnis PureSee, on the other hand, is a newer introduction. It was first launched in 2023–2024, with Johnson & Johnson making it available in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) as of February 2024www.jjvision.com www.jjvision.com. Regulatory approval in other markets (like the U.S.) may follow; J&J announced the lens as a “next-generation presbyopia-correcting IOL” and is likely pursuing approvals globally. As of early 2025, PureSee may still be in the rollout phase – for instance, it might be available in select European clinics but not yet broadly in the U.S. (pending FDA approval). Patients interested in PureSee should check with their surgeon if it’s offered, or if not, whether an alternative (like Vivity or another EDOF) can meet their needs in the interim.

In terms of distribution and surgeon experience, Vivity has a head start with a proven track record over a few years, and many surgeons are familiar with its outcomes. PureSee’s initial clinical studies are very promisingpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, and early adopters report success, but as a newer product it may not be as widely adopted yet. Some surgeons might prefer to wait for more real-world data, while others are quick to embrace the latest technology. Both Alcon and J&J provide training and support for their lenses, so in experienced hands, outcomes should be excellent with either. Insurance and health system factors: In places like the UK’s NHS or Canadian healthcare, typically only standard lenses are covered; patients can upgrade by paying privately. In the US, Medicare allows patients to pay the difference for premium lenses. These considerations are identical for Vivity vs PureSee – there’s no inherent cost difference other than what the manufacturer sets (which, again, is usually similar).

Summing up Cost/Availability: Vivity is currently the more established and readily accessible EDOF IOL, whereas PureSee is the exciting new entrant becoming available in 2024 onward. Both are premium-cost lenses. Patients should consult with their ophthalmologist on which lens is available and suitable, and be aware of the out-of-pocket expense. Despite the cost, the value lies in the improved range of vision and potentially reduced need for glasses or contacts, which for many patients is a life-changing benefit that justifies the investmentwww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com.

References:

Carones F. et al. (2024). “Following the New Generation” – EuroTimes/ESCRS. Highlights refractive EDOF IOL performance (PureSee vs Eyhance) and low halo profilewww.escrs.org www.escrs.org www.escrs.org.
Pantanelli S. et al. (2023). J Cataract Refract Surg, 49(4):360-6. Randomized trial of Alcon Vivity (ND-EDOF) vs monofocal: found similar distance vision, ~2 lines better intermediate/near, and low photic phenomenapubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Chung B. et al. (2023). Clin Ophthalmol, 17:3267-3278. Six-month outcomes of Tecnis PureSee vs Tecnis Eyhance: PureSee had 20/15 distance, 20/25 intermediate (monocular), superior to Eyhance, with halo rates comparable to monofocal (3.4% very bothersome)pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Alcon data – Product Info/Press: Vivity uses X-WAVE wavefront shaping to extend focus without splitting lightwww.ophthalmologytimes.com. Achieves distance + intermediate + functional near vision with minimal glarewww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. Over 1 million implanted worldwidewww.ophthalmologytimes.com www.ophthalmologytimes.com.
Johnson & Johnson Vision – Press Release (Feb 15, 2024): Launch of Tecnis PureSee in EMEA. Highlights PureSee’s purely refractive design for “uninterrupted, high-quality vision” with monofocal-like contrast and low-light performancewww.jjvision.com www.jjvision.comand low dysphotopsiawww.jjvision.com www.jjvision.com.
NVISION Eye Centers – Vivity Lens Review: Patient-reported outcomes indicate high satisfaction and minimal visual disturbances with Vivitywww.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. Typical cost range $2500–$ n3200 per eye in the U.S.www.nvisioncenters.com www.nvisioncenters.com. (Accessed 2025)