Literature DB >> 30849425

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses for age-related cataract patients: a system review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

Kai Cao1, David S Friedman2, Shanshan Jin1, Mayinuer Yusufu1, Jingshang Zhang1, Jinda Wang1, Simeng Hou1, Guyu Zhu1, Bingsong Wang1, Ying Xiong3, Jing Li3, Xiaoxia Li1, Hailong He1, Lijing Chai3, Xiu Hua Wan4.   

Abstract

We compare multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs) to monofocal IOLs for visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, and adverse events using data from 21 randomized controlled trials with 2951 subjects. There was no statistical difference between uncorrected distance VA and corrected distance VA. Compared with monofocal IOLs, MFIOLs showed a better performance on uncorrected intermediate VA measured at 60 cm and uncorrected near VA; the mean differences were -0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.10, -0.03) and -0.13 (95% CI: -0.20, -0.07). Distance-corrected intermediate VA and distance-corrected near VA were measured wearing distance correction. MFIOLs performed better than monofocal IOLs on distance-corrected intermediate VA at 60 cm and distance-corrected near VA; the mean differences were -0.09 (95% CI: -0.12, -0.06) and -0.31 (95% CI: -0.43, -0.19). The contrast sensitivity of the MFIOL group was lower than that of the monofocal IOL group; mean difference was -0.06 (95% CI: -0.11, -0.02). More patients were spectacle free in the MFIOL group; the risk ratio was 2.86 (95% CI: 1.73, 4.73). More patients were troubled by glare and halos in the MFIOL group; the risk ratios were 1.91 (95% CI: 1.24, 2.95) and 3.08 (95% CI: 2.11, 4.49). We conclude that, compared with monofocal IOLs, MFIOLs give patients better near vision and intermediate vision at 60 cm, both corrected and uncorrected. Patients undergoing MFIOLs implantation are more likely to be spectacle free but have a higher risk of glare, halos, and lower contrast sensitivity.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cataract surgery; intraocular lenses; meta; monofocal; multifocal

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30849425     DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.02.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0039-6257            Impact factor:   6.048


  12 in total

1.  Optical Coherence Tomography: Critical Tool to Manage Expectations after Cataract Extraction.

Authors:  Raquel Goldhardt; Bradley Simon Rosen
Journal:  Curr Ophthalmol Rep       Date:  2020-06-06

2.  Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jeong-Yeon Cho; Yeo Kyoung Won; Jongyeop Park; Jin Hyun Nam; Ji-Yoon Hong; Serim Min; Nahyun Kim; Tae-Young Chung; Eui-Kyung Lee; Sun-Hong Kwon; Dong Hui Lim
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 8.253

3.  Patient-Reported Outcomes/Satisfaction and Spectacle Independence with Blended or Bilateral Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery.

Authors:  John A Hovanesian; Stephen S Lane; Quentin B Allen; Michael Jones
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-12-27

4.  Clinical Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lens in an Indian Population.

Authors:  Dandapani Ramamurthy; Abhay Vasavada; Prema Padmanabhan; Jagadesh C Reddy; Naren Shetty; Arindam Dey; Rachapalle Reddi Sudhir
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-01-22

5.  The Vivity Extended Range of Vision IOL vs the PanOptix Trifocal, ReStor 2.5 Active Focus and ReStor 3.0 Multifocal Lenses: A Comparison of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Spectacle Independence.

Authors:  John A Hovanesian; Michael Jones; Quentin Allen
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-01-18

Review 6.  Comparison of Patient Outcomes following Implantation of Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yining Guo; Yinhao Wang; Ran Hao; Xiaodan Jiang; Ziyuan Liu; Xuemin Li
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-12-29       Impact factor: 1.909

7.  Implantable collamer lens versus small incision lenticule extraction for high myopia correction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kai Cao; Jingshang Zhang; Jinda Wang; Mayinuer Yusufu; Shanshan Jin; Shuying Chen; Ningli Wang; Zi-Bing Jin; Xiu Hua Wan
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 2.209

8.  Visual Function and Patient Satisfaction with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in Patients with Glaucoma and Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Authors:  Carmen Sánchez-Sánchez; Laureano A Rementería-Capelo; Beatriz Puerto; Cristina López-Caballero; Aida Morán; José María Sánchez-Pina; Inés Contreras
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 1.909

9.  Disruptive Innovation and Refractive IOLs: How the Game Will Change With Adjustable IOLs.

Authors:  David F Chang
Journal:  Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila)       Date:  2019 Nov-Dec

10.  The PanOptix Trifocal IOL vs the ReSTOR 2.5 Active Focus and ReSTOR 3.0-Add Multifocal Lenses: A Study of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Uncorrected Visual Performance.

Authors:  John A Hovanesian; Michael Jones; Quentin Allen
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.