Visual and patient-reported outcomes of an enhanced versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Eye Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1038/s41433-025-03625-4
Joaquín Fernández, Filomena Ribeiro, Noemí Burguera, Marina Rodríguez-Calvo-de-Mora, Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo
{"title":"Visual and patient-reported outcomes of an enhanced versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Joaquín Fernández, Filomena Ribeiro, Noemí Burguera, Marina Rodríguez-Calvo-de-Mora, Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo","doi":"10.1038/s41433-025-03625-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding the functional outcomes achieved with new enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) is crucial for adequately managing patient expectations. This study evaluated visual and patient-reported outcomes of an enhanced range of field IOL versus other monofocal IOLs in cataract patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis, pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024561611), included studies from Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and trial registries (2019-2024) focused on binocular cataract surgeries with various IOL models. Primary outcomes assessed were monocular distance-corrected visual acuities (CDVA, DCIVA, DCNVA), defocus curves, and contrast sensitivity; secondary measures included binocular visual acuities and patient-reported outcomes such as spectacle independence and photic phenomena. Out of 31 studies (8 randomized clinical trials, 23 case series), high-certainty evidence indicated no significant difference in CDVA between enhanced and conventional IOLs. However, enhanced IOLs demonstrated better intermediate (DCIVA: −0.11 logMAR, CI 95%: −0.13 to −0.10) and near (DCNVA: −0.12 logMAR, CI 95%: −0.17 to −0.07) visual acuities, supported by defocus curves, though with lower-certainty evidence. No significant differences were observed in contrast sensitivity or photic phenomena, and evidence for positive dysphotopsia was moderate to low. Enhanced IOLs significantly favored intermediate-distance spectacle independence, with an odds ratio of 7.85 (CI 95%: 4.08–15.09), though no differences were observed for distance spectacle independence. Near-distance spectacle independence also favored enhanced IOLs, though with low-certainty evidence. In summary, enhanced IOLs provide improved intermediate and near visual acuities compared to conventional monofocal IOLs, though further studies are needed to confirm outcomes in contrast sensitivity and patient-reported outcomes across various enhanced monofocal IOLs.","PeriodicalId":12125,"journal":{"name":"Eye","volume":"39 5","pages":"883-898"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-025-03625-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-025-03625-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understanding the functional outcomes achieved with new enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) is crucial for adequately managing patient expectations. This study evaluated visual and patient-reported outcomes of an enhanced range of field IOL versus other monofocal IOLs in cataract patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis, pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024561611), included studies from Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and trial registries (2019-2024) focused on binocular cataract surgeries with various IOL models. Primary outcomes assessed were monocular distance-corrected visual acuities (CDVA, DCIVA, DCNVA), defocus curves, and contrast sensitivity; secondary measures included binocular visual acuities and patient-reported outcomes such as spectacle independence and photic phenomena. Out of 31 studies (8 randomized clinical trials, 23 case series), high-certainty evidence indicated no significant difference in CDVA between enhanced and conventional IOLs. However, enhanced IOLs demonstrated better intermediate (DCIVA: −0.11 logMAR, CI 95%: −0.13 to −0.10) and near (DCNVA: −0.12 logMAR, CI 95%: −0.17 to −0.07) visual acuities, supported by defocus curves, though with lower-certainty evidence. No significant differences were observed in contrast sensitivity or photic phenomena, and evidence for positive dysphotopsia was moderate to low. Enhanced IOLs significantly favored intermediate-distance spectacle independence, with an odds ratio of 7.85 (CI 95%: 4.08–15.09), though no differences were observed for distance spectacle independence. Near-distance spectacle independence also favored enhanced IOLs, though with low-certainty evidence. In summary, enhanced IOLs provide improved intermediate and near visual acuities compared to conventional monofocal IOLs, though further studies are needed to confirm outcomes in contrast sensitivity and patient-reported outcomes across various enhanced monofocal IOLs.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
白内障手术中增强人工晶状体与单焦点人工晶状体的视力和患者报告的结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
了解新的增强单焦点人工晶状体(iol)的功能结果对于充分管理患者的期望至关重要。本研究评估了增强视野范围人工晶状体与其他单焦点人工晶状体在白内障患者中的视力和患者报告的结果。在PROSPERO (CRD42024561611)上预注册的一项系统综述和荟萃分析纳入了Medline (PubMed)、Embase (Ovid)和试验注册中心(2019-2024)的研究,重点关注各种人工晶状体模型的双目白内障手术。评估的主要结果是单眼距离矫正视力(CDVA、DCIVA、DCNVA)、离焦曲线和对比敏感度;次要测量包括双眼视力和患者报告的结果,如眼镜独立性和光现象。在31项研究(8项随机临床试验,23例病例系列)中,高确定性证据表明增强型和常规iol之间的CDVA无显著差异。然而,增强的iol显示出更好的中间(DCIVA: -0.11 logMAR, CI 95%: -0.13至-0.10)和近(DCNVA: -0.12 logMAR, CI 95%: -0.17至-0.07)视力,得到离焦曲线的支持,尽管证据的确定性较低。在对比敏感度或光现象方面没有观察到显著差异,阳性的光线不足的证据是中等到低的。增强的iol显著有利于中距离眼镜的独立性,优势比为7.85 (CI 95%: 4.08-15.09),但在远距离眼镜独立性方面没有观察到差异。近距离眼镜独立性也有利于增强iol,尽管证据不确定。总之,与传统的单焦点iol相比,增强型iol提供了更好的中、近视力,尽管需要进一步的研究来证实对比敏感度的结果和各种增强型单焦点iol患者报告的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Eye
Eye 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
481
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Eye seeks to provide the international practising ophthalmologist with high quality articles, of academic rigour, on the latest global clinical and laboratory based research. Its core aim is to advance the science and practice of ophthalmology with the latest clinical- and scientific-based research. Whilst principally aimed at the practising clinician, the journal contains material of interest to a wider readership including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science worldwide. Eye is the official journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Eye encourages the submission of original articles covering all aspects of ophthalmology including: external eye disease; oculo-plastic surgery; orbital and lacrimal disease; ocular surface and corneal disorders; paediatric ophthalmology and strabismus; glaucoma; medical and surgical retina; neuro-ophthalmology; cataract and refractive surgery; ocular oncology; ophthalmic pathology; ophthalmic genetics.
期刊最新文献
The global clinical trial landscape for glaucoma over the past three decades: current status and future prospects. Performance of modern large language models in ophthalmic knowledge assessment: a comparative assessment of OpenEvidence, ChatGPT-5.1, and Gemini 3.0 Pro. 10-year analysis of microbiological profiles and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility: the Kent microbial keratitis study. Comment on: 'Neovascular glaucoma incidence and visual outcomes in treated proliferative diabetic retinopathy with anterior segment neovascularisation'. Response to: Comment on: "Epiretinal membrane formation and incomplete separation of the posterior hyaloid membrane".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1