What Vivity is good at—and what it does not solve
If the daily sequence is road sign → dashboard → computer, Vivity is built to cover more of it than a standard distance monofocal. It creates one extended zone of focus rather than three separate diffractive focal points. That is the simple meaning of EDOF, or extended depth of focus.
The phone at 40 cm is a different question. Vivity improved the average near result over its monofocal control, but it did not turn close reading into a reliable strength. Someone choosing it mainly to read fine print without glasses should look very carefully at the trial’s own near target below.
AcrySof IQ Vivity is Alcon’s non-diffractive EDOF IOL, approved by the FDA in 2020. The main non-toric model is DFT015, with toric and UV-only variants. Alcon calls its wavefront-shaping design “X-Wave.” That is a manufacturer name for the mechanism—not proof of a clinical result by itself.
What it looks like
The image below is reproduced from the lens's own FDA regulatory filing, not manufacturer marketing artwork, so what is shown is exactly what the FDA reviewed and approved.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, Figures 1–2
Where the numbers come from
Every figure below comes from Vivity’s public FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (PMA P930014/S126). The registration study implanted 220 patients—107 with Vivity and 113 with a monofocal control—at 11 U.S. sites and followed them for six months. It was an Alcon-sponsored trial.
A differently paginated “Master Text” also circulates for this approval. I use the SSED here and cite its table numbers so that an impressive-looking figure cannot quietly migrate from one document or outcome to another.
Visual acuity by distance
Bars show relative acuity—longer means sharper. logMAR is the study scale: lower is better. The familiar Snellen equivalent appears at right.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, Table 24
The practical result is straightforward. At 66 cm—roughly a desktop screen or dashboard distance—Vivity averaged about 20/28 versus 20/41 with the monofocal control. At 40 cm—closer to a phone or book—the average was about 20/46 versus 20/65. Distance was maintained, intermediate improved clearly, and near improved less.
Depth of focus
A defocus curve maps how vision changes as the test moves through optical distances. Vivity’s SSED also gives a simpler summary: the range over which each lens maintained 0.20 logMAR acuity or better (≤0.20).
Diopters (D) of defocus range — larger is a wider zone of usable clear vision.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, p.37
That is the optical point of Vivity in one number: a wider usable zone than the monofocal control. It does not tell us by itself how long someone can read, whether the print feels comfortable, or whether glasses are needed.
Contrast sensitivity
Contrast sensitivity is the ability to detect an object when it does not stand out strongly from its background—such as a dark pedestrian on a dim road. It is not the same as reading black letters on a bright chart.
Log units—higher is better. Mesopic means dim-light conditions. Cycles per degree (cpd) describe the size of the striped detail: higher cpd means finer detail.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, Table 19
At 1.5 cpd, Vivity and the control had the same median result. At 3, 6 and 12 cpd, Vivity was lower, with the largest gap at the finest tested pattern. These are results from one eye per patient in dim light without glare.
Here is the uncomfortable number, stated with its boundary intact. In this monocular dim-light laboratory test without glare, 43.0% of Vivity eyes and 20.7% of monofocal-control eyes could not see the 12-cpd reference pattern at any available contrast. With glare, the figures were 52.3% and 25.2%. This does not mean that 43% of patients “could not see fine detail in real life.” It means the finest pattern exceeded the measurable range for many eyes under this specific test—and it confirms a model-level contrast difference worth discussing if low-light reserve is important.
Visual disturbances (halos, glare, starbursts)
% of patients reporting the highest bother level on a directed questionnaire.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, Table 21
Within Vivity’s own trial, the highest “very much bothered” rates were low and close to the monofocal control. On the related severity scale (Table 22), severe starbursts were reported by 3.8% of Vivity patients versus 2.7% of controls, and severe halos by 0.9% in both groups.
PanOptix and Synergy registration programmes reported more halo burden, but that is an indirect comparison across separate studies. Different questionnaires and reporting methods can move a percentage substantially. The honest conclusion is not a universal ranking; it is that Vivity’s own directed-questionnaire results support a low severe-disturbance profile while its contrast results show a measurable cost.
Possible limitations, based on this data
- The trial's own near-vision target, set before the study began (>50% of eyes at 0.30 logMAR or better at 40 cm), was not met — the actual result was 40.2%. Patients whose main priority is glasses-free reading should discuss this specifically with their surgeon.
- Contrast sensitivity was lower than the monofocal control at every tested spatial frequency except the lowest. The 12-cpd “not measurable” result belongs to one monocular mesopic lab test and should not be turned into a real-world failure rate.
- Vivity adds less near than many patients expect from the phrase “extended vision.” PanOptix and Synergy can only be discussed as indirect alternatives from separate registration programmes—not as if they appeared in this dataset.
- At six months, 21.6% of Vivity patients (N=102) versus 3.6% of monofocal-control patients (N=111) reported never needing eyeglasses or contact lenses (SSED, p. 46). This is the strict “never” outcome, not “rarely or never.” Because the study missed its pre-set near-vision target, its analysis plan did not allow this difference to be tested for statistical significance.
- This is one 6-month industry-sponsored registration trial (107 Vivity eyes) — a valid basis for FDA approval, but smaller and shorter than the accumulated real-world literature on some other lenses in this category.
Who should put Vivity on the shortlist?
My reading is that Vivity belongs on the shortlist when useful dashboard and screen vision matters, severe halo and glare are a major concern, and needing readers for sustained close work is acceptable. Its own trial supports that position.
It becomes a harder choice when 40 cm reading without glasses is the main goal, or when the eye already has limited contrast reserve because of retinal, optic-nerve or corneal disease. That does not make the lens unsuitable by itself; medical suitability requires an examination. It means the exact near and low-light evidence should be part of the decision, not hidden behind the words “non-diffractive EDOF.”
How it compares
Vivity is a non-diffractive EDOF lens: it extends one focal zone through wavefront shaping instead of creating three diffractive focal points. For the category-level decision, see EDOF IOLs. For another fully refractive, non-diffractive approach, see the TECNIS PureSee review. Results across those separate programmes remain indirect comparisons.
A note on how manufacturers present this same data
Marketing naturally leads with the wider depth of focus and low severe-disturbance figures. Both are genuine strengths. The same FDA record also says that the near-vision target set before the trial was not met and shows lower dim-light contrast at several frequencies. Leaving out that half turns evidence into a brochure.
Some professional materials also rely on “Data on File.” That can be useful, but it is not as independently checkable as the public FDA record used here.
Questions to ask your surgeon
- At my real screen distance, what result do you expect from Vivity with the target you plan?
- If I want to read at 40 cm, how often should I expect to use glasses?
- Does my retina, optic nerve, cornea or low-light work make the contrast result more important?
- How were halos and glare measured for the alternative you are comparing with Vivity?
- What simpler lens would preserve more contrast, and what difference in near or intermediate range should I expect?
A note on this review
This page explains group data; it does not predict one eye or prescribe a lens. Every figure is sourced from the FDA SSED for PMA P930014/S126 and cited by table number. Medical suitability and the final IOL choice belong with an ophthalmic surgeon who has examined your eyes.