ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Clinical outcome comparison: bilateral trifocal vs. mix-match extended depth of focus and trifocal intraocular lenses.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Visual Outcomes After Mix-and-Match Implantation of Trifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Trial
- Comparison of bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus lenses and a blend approach of extended depth of focus lenses and bifocal lenses in cataract patients.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Trial
- Predictions of Through-Focus Performance of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopic Subjects Using a Visual Simulator.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Review of Mix-and-Match Approach and Binocular Intraocular Lens Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Mix-and-Match Implantation of a Trifocal and Non-Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus IOL.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Long-term Results after Bilateral Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses with Mini-Monovision.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2024Article
- Visual performance and patient preference with bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus or combined implantation of an extended depth of focus/trifocal intraocular lens.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Comparisons of visual outcomes between bilateral implantation and mix-and-match implantation of three types intraocular lenses.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the visual outcomes, contrast sensitivity (CS), and patient satisfaction differences between the bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and the mix-match implantation of an extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL and a diffractive trifocal IOL.
methodsA total of 20 patients who underwent bilateral implantation of AT LISA tri 839MP (Group 1) and 20 patients who had a mix-match implantation of AT LARA 829MP in the dominant eye and AT LISA tri 839MP in the nondominant eye (Group 2) were evaluated. Uncorrected distance (4 m), intermediate (60 cm and 80 cm), and near (40 cm) visual acuity, as well as CS, defocus curve, and responses to the patient questionnaires, were evaluated.
resultsEighty eyes of 40 patients were included. Uncorrected distance and near visual outcomes were similar between the groups (p > 0.05). Group 2 showed significantly better intermediate visual outcomes at 60 cm and 80 cm than Group 1 (p < 0.05). Group 2 showed significantly better CS outcomes (photopic and mesopic) than Group 1 (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding defocus curves from + 0.00 D to - 2.00 D, but a significant difference was shown from - 2.00 D to - 4.00 D. Patients' satisfaction was significantly higher in Group 2 for driving at night (p < 0.05).
conclusionsBoth groups showed an effective visual performance. Group 2 exhibited better photopic and mesopic CS. The combination of EDOF and trifocal IOL seems to be a good option with a comfortable vision at all distances and less adverse visual phenomena.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34180019What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.