Trial reportScientific reports2023
Randomized multicenter trial to assess posterior capsule opacification and glistenings in two hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Advances in cataract surgery: is a new era on the horizon?Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of visual outcomes, optical quality, and patient satisfaction with a novel monofocal intraocular lens.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Rapid posterior capsular opacification in two patients treated for negative dysphotopsias.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Article
- Effect of surface-modified intraocular lenses on long-term postoperative inhibition of posterior capsule opacification.Heliyon · 2024Article
- A new software for automated counting of glistenings in intraocular lensesInternational journal of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the long-term posterior capsule opacification (PCO) formation, and glistening rate of the HOYA Vivinex (XY1) IOL compared to Alcon AcrySof (SN60WF). In this prospective, multicentric, randomized, paired-eye, open-label study, we included 87 subjects that underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation, with 67 patients completing the 3-year follow-up. The completer population consisted of 32 subjects implanted with XY1 and 35 implanted with SN60WF. Primary endpoints consisted of the evaluation of glistenings and measurement of PCO. Secondary outcomes included Best Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (BCVA), Contrast Acuity (CA), uncorrected visual acuities, subjective refraction, medical and lens complication rates, adverse events, and optical/visual symptoms. Follow-up visits occurred at 6-months, 1-, 2- and 3-years. At 3-years follow-up, mean PCO score was 0.121 ± 0.193 for eyes implanted with Vivinex versus 0.239 ± 0.463 for AcrySof (p = 0.026). The Vivinex IOL showed statistically significantly lower glistening occurrence through 3-years postoperatively (0.14 ± 0.26) compared to AcrySof (1.79 ± 1.43; p < 0.0001). Postoperative visual acuities improved from baseline in both IOL groups (p < 0.0001), and remained stable through the 3-year follow-up period. Eyes implanted with a HOYA Vivinex IOL exhibited significantly lower occurrence of glistening at 3-years versus Alcon AcrySof (p < 0.0001). Incidence of PCO was very low and comparable in both Vivinex and AcrySof eyes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.