Multifocal Premium IOL Comparisons: PanOptix Pro (April 2025 release) vs. Original PanOptix—And How Both Stack Up to J&J’s TECNIS Odyssey IOL (October 2024 release)

Multifocal IOL technology, which offer the potential for excellent near, intermediate and distance vision, is moving fast. In April 2025 Alcon introduced Clareon PanOptix Pro, an update to the market-leading PanOptix trifocal, while Johnson & Johnson brought its next-gen TECNIS Odyssey “full visual range (FVR)” lens to wider markets. I wanted to give the latest review of these lenses with as much evidence based data as possible. I tell my patients that if you’ve been waiting, now is an excellent time to do it, because these updated lenses have just been released, and there won’t likely be anything better for 5 years.

PanOptix Pro improves upon PanOptix

Optics & light handling: PanOptix Pro keeps the trifocal concept (distance / ~60 cm intermediate / ~40 cm near) but adds ENLIGHTEN NXT optics. Alcon reports 94% light utilization (vs ~88% for original PanOptix) and ~50% less stray light on bench testing—aimed at improving image contrast and reducing the rings around lights. Early units ship on the Clareon platform (AutonoMe preloaded) with the same +3.25 D near and +2.17 D intermediate for excellent mid and near range vision.

Clinical evidence so far: As of mid-2025, head-to-head Pro vs. PanOptix trials are registered and enrolling, but peer-reviewed outcomes aren’t yet published. Two comparative studies are listed (e.g., NCT06400745/ILQ137-C002-A and NCT06401551). Until those read out, most “Pro” claims are supported by bench studies, company data, and early surgeon reports.

What that likely means for patients: better night vision and better contrast—especially helpful for patients sensitive to halo/glare. I’ve been impressed that patients are super happy with the new lens, but they were happy with the original also, so it’s difficult to tell how much better it is.

The original PanOptix (Clareon/AcrySof)

What we know (peer-reviewed). PanOptix has substantial published data: high spectacle independence and strong near performance with known trifocal-type halos/glare for a subset.

Examples:

• Patient satisfaction ~85% “very satisfied” in one multi-center study; ~99% would recommend surgery.
• Clareon vs AcrySof PanOptix: similar visual outcomes and spectacle independence (~88% none).
• Visual disturbances: meta-analytic/post-market data suggest glare ~34%, halos ~44%, starbursts ~30% (any severity). Many patients still report overall satisfaction despite these phenomena.

Panoptix has excellent near and distance vision, and the updated version will have even better performance; dysphotopsias, which is the term for any sort of glare/haloes, are always present even in the monofocal lenses to some degree.

TECNIS Odyssey (J&J) — an FVR lens

What it is: Odyssey is positioned as a Full Visual Range (FVR) lens—J&J’s next step beyond EDOF (replaces their Symfony lens)—designed to deliver distance through functional near with fewer dysphotopsias and higher tolerance to residual refractive error. It secured U.S. approval in 2023–24 as an evolution of the TECNIS platform and has since expanded globally.

Clinical evidence: there’s not much, but good reports among my peers in forums

• Company-sponsored and investigator data presented at ARVO/ASCRS 2024–2025 report high spectacle independence, broad defocus curves, and reduced dysphotopsias; peer-reviewed, large-scale publications are pending
• Trade-journal write-ups of early studies show 20/32 or better from plano to −2.50 D monocular at 1 month in a small cohort (n=54 eyes/27 pts), consistent with a wide useful range. Treat these as advertising, not evidence, but many of my colleagues have been impressed with the patient feedback.
• J&J materials claim 14% smaller readable print vs PanOptix and ~93% free from glasses in early series; again, these are manufacturer-reported findings that warrant independent confirmation.

PanOptix Pro vs. PanOptix vs. Odyssey: How they compare:

Range of vision

• PanOptix (classic): Robust near and intermediate with true trifocal peaks; many patients read fine print without readers.
• PanOptix Pro: Projected to match PanOptix’s range with better light management; awaiting peer-reviewed confirmation.
• Odyssey: Broad, continuous curve more akin to enhanced EDOF/FVR—excellent distance/intermediate and functional near; some early data and marketing suggest smaller readable print than PanOptix, but most surgeons still consider PanOptix-type trifocals the “near champs.”

Dysphotopsias (halos/glare/starbursts)

• PanOptix: Well-documented incidence of halos/glare; tolerability varies, with 98% of patients still satisfied.
• PanOptix Pro: Bench data predict less scatter → potentially fewer/smaller halos; real-world data pending.
• Odyssey: Early clinical experience and company summaries highlight fewer or milder dysphotopsias than classic trifocals. High-quality, peer-reviewed head-to-heads are being performed.

Tolerance to residual Rx

• PanOptix / Pro: Trifocals can be slightly less forgiving of small residual refractive errors, but can be touched up with laser. Pro’s higher light utilization may help image quality, and early anecdotal evidence is good; studies are in process.
• Odyssey: Marketing emphasize better tolerance to residual refractive error, which can matter in post-LASIK/irregular eyes or when pursuing mini-monovision strategies.

What patients are saying (Reddit snapshots)

Reddit isn’t peer-reviewed, but it’s useful for themes:

• PanOptix Pro: Early recipients in r/CataractSurgery describe excellent night vision and strong day-to-day function; several note their surgeons recommended Pro for potentially fewer halos vs. PanOptix. (Reddit tends toward those who are unhappy vs. happy posts.)
• Odyssey: Mixed but generally upbeat early experiences—good distance/intermediate; some report adequate near and fewer night artifacts, while others still chase crisp near with readers or mini-monovision.

Practical recommendations

1. Prioritize the patient’s near-task profile. If maximal near (fine print, crafts) with true spectacle independence is the primary goal and the patient accepts halo risk, PanOptix Pro is superb; Pro seems to reduce rings around lights at night. If the patient puts more value on night driving and with functional near (often phone/labels) and wants a smoother defocus curve with slightly higher refractive forgiveness, Odyssey is attractive.
2.  A huge potential factor: Ocular surface drying in women more than men. Ocular surface optimization and precise IOL power (or planned mini-monovision) often determine who raves and who needs readers—especially with premium optics. This is super important for happy patients, but they need to be committed to making an effort themselves at home.
3.  Set expectations with visuals. Show halo simulations and discuss that even with improved optics, some artifacts are normal as they are with contact lenses, and monofocal lenses; most patients adapt.

Limitations of the evidence (as of August 21, 2025)

• PanOptix Pro: Largely bench, manufacturer, and early clinical anecdotes; peer-reviewed, randomized head-to-head data vs. PanOptix are pending (trials registered).
• Odyssey: Growing real-world/meeting anecdotes and trade-journal (paid ads) coverage; broader, peer-reviewed comparative literature vs. trifocals (including PanOptix/Pro) is still limited.

Take-home Messages

• PanOptix (classic) is the known trifocal workhorse with excellent near but predictable halos/glare are tolerated by vast majority.
• PanOptix Pro aims to clean up the optics (higher light utilization, less scatter) while preserving the trifocal range—promising, but wait for peer-reviewed outcomes.
• Odyssey targets a smoother, forgiving full-range profile with fewer dysphotopsias and strong intermediate; near is functional for most, though avid readers may still prefer trifocal-level near or planned mini-monovision.

For surgeons, align the lens to the patient’s near-task demands, night-vision priorities, ocular surface health, and tolerance for optical phenomena—2025 is an exciting year where data for both Pro and Odyssey are rapidly expanding.

References (selected)

• PanOptix Pro technical & launch: Alcon professional page (ENLIGHTEN NXT, 94% light utilization); Alcon press release (powers, AutonoMe).
•  PanOptix peer-reviewed outcomes
• Hovanesian et al. OPTH 2021—patient satisfaction (PanOptix vs comparators).
• Hovanesian et al. Clin Ophthalmol 2024—Clareon vs AcrySof PanOptix outcomes.
• Zhu et al. 2024—patient-reported visual disturbances after bilateral PanOptix.
• PanOptix Pro trials: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06400745; NCT06401551.
• Odyssey approvals & data: FDA PMA supplement; J&J launch announcement; Ophthalmology Times coverage; ASCRS/ARVO press materials; early clinical series and trade-journal defocus curve report.
• Odyssey real-world study registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05991960.
• Patient perspectives: r/CataractSurgery threads for PanOptix Pro and Odyssey. (Anecdotal.)