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

IF 2.8 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":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12125,"journal":{"name":"Eye","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/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.

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
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
A phase III study comparing preservative-free latanoprost eye drop emulsion with preserved latanoprost in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Comment on: 'A multifactorial, evidence-based analysis of pathophysiology in Spaceflight Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome (SANS)'. Optic disc parameters and associations with early life exposures in over 3000 12-year-old children: findings from the ALSPAC cohort. Inner retinal hyper-reflective foci number correlates with flood-illumination adaptive optics ophthalmoscopy grading and systemic organ involvement in patients with Fabry disease. Mendelian randomization analysis revealed a gut microbiota-eye axis in acute anterior uveitis.
×
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:481959085
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