ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Long Term Clinical Outcomes of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Versions of a Trifocal IOL with the Same Optical Design.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual and refractive outcomes of eyes with low corneal astigmatism implanted with low toric or non-toric trifocal intraocular lenses.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- An Update on Intraocular Lens Technology for Presbyopia Correction and Visual Outcomes.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- First Clinical Results of a Multicentric Prospective Study on the Visual Performance of Patients Implanted with a New Trifocal Aspheric Hydrophobic Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of the First Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Literature Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Comparison of Visual Performance Between Two Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of a hydrophobic trifocal diffractive intraocular lens: a literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Refractive Outcomes After Cataract Surgery-The Impact of Preoperative Visual Acuity, the Intraocular Lens Model, and the Surgeon's Experience: An Empirical Analysis of Hungarian and Kosovan Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Visual Performance Correlation with Corneal Aberrometric Profile and Pupil Size After Implantation of a Trifocal Hydrophobic IOL.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To show the visual and refractive outcomes in Asian eyes with cataract when bilaterally implanted with either a hydrophobic FineVision POD F GF or a hydrophilic FineVision POD F intraocular lens (IOL). Methods: Forty-six patients were randomized to receive POD F GF or POD F IOLs. Visual and refractive outcomes were assessed up to 24 months post-surgery. Measurements included uncorrected-distance visual acuity, corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), refraction, defocus curve, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Mean spherical equivalent was close to emmetropia for both groups and stable across postoperative visits. Overall, 97.73% and 100% of eyes in the POD F GF IOL group and 95.65% and 100%, of eyes in the POD F IOL group were within ±1.00D of the target refraction at 12 and 24 months, respectively. All patients showed a CDVA of ≥20/25 at 12- and 24-months post-surgery. In both groups, 24 months post-surgery 91% of patients presented a DCIVA of ≥20/25 and 83.3% of patients had a DCNVA of ≥20/25. Defocus curve showed continuous visual acuity, being 20/32 or better in both groups over a 4.00D range between 1.00D and -3.00/-3.50D. Both groups showed good contrast sensitivity values for photopic and mesopic conditions. Overall, 86.4%, 86.4%, and 72.7% of patients implanted with the POD F GF IOL reported not wearing glasses at all for distance, intermediate, and near vision, respectively. These values were 81.8%, 86.4%, and 90.9% for patients implanted with the POD F IOL. Both groups of patients reported similar satisfaction percentages (100% very satisfied/satisfied) and would recommend the procedure (100% definitively yes/probably yes). Conclusion: This study demonstrates good visual and refractive outcomes for both the FineVision POD F GF and the FineVision POD F IOLs when implanted in Asian 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.