Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32308364›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Spectacle Independence for Pseudophakic Patients - Experience with a Trifocal Supplementary Add-on Intraocular Lens.

Carlos Palomino-Bautista, Rubén Sánchez-Jean, David Carmona Gonzalez, Marta Romero Domínguez, Alfredo Castillo Gómez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Polypseudophakia: from "Piggyback" to supplementary sulcus-fixated IOLs.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The effects of premium intraocular lenses on presbyopia treatments.Advances in ophthalmology practice and research
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carlos Palomino-BautistaDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Quirónsalud Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2396-5262
Rubén Sánchez-JeanDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Quirónsalud Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9473-857X
David Carmona GonzalezDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Quirónsalud Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7397-8163
Marta Romero DomínguezDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Quirónsalud Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Alfredo Castillo GómezDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Quirónsalud Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the refractive and functional outcomes of the trifocal 1stQ AddOn PATIENTS AND

methodsThe study included 18 eyes of 11 pseudophakic patients with uncomplicated previous implantation of monofocal capsular bag IOLs. These patients had a desire for spectacle independence. Distance, intermediate and near visual acuities were measured, and defocus curves were plotted over a period of 6 months following implantation of the add-on IOLs. Intraocular pressure (IOP), endothelial cell density measurements and biomicroscopic evaluation were also performed.

resultsIn this study, 83.3% of eyes had spherical refractions within ±0.5 D from emetropia and 100% of eyes had spherical equivalent refractions that were within ±1.0 D of the target refraction. Visual acuities and defocus curves clearly confirmed trifocal optical performance (UDVA=0.03 ±0.05; UIVA=0.21 ±0.04; UNVA=0.12 ±0.04 logMAR; expressed as mean ±SD). Depth of focus showed identical results (DOF=0.486 D) compared to a trifocal capsular bag IOL, while the defocus curve was found to be superior in the intermediate and near ranges when compared to a trifocal capsular bag IOL. All patients achieved spectacle independence at all distances. All add-on IOLs were well positioned in the ciliary sulcus. No negative changes were noted in connection with endothelial cell counts, IOPs, the angle structure during surgery and during the follow-up period.

conclusionThe supplementary trifocal add-on IOL seems to be a safe, efficient and stable solution for achieving spectacle independence in pseudophakic patients with monofocal primary IOLs.

Indexed as

cataract surgerydefocus curvespectacle independencesupplementary IOLtrifocal

Identifiers

PMID32308364
PMCPMC7156274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.