ArticleScientific reports2023
Clinical outcomes of a new four-haptic hydrophobic presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Optical Bench Evaluation of a Novel, Hydrophobic, Acrylic, One-Piece, Polyfocal Intraocular Lens with a "Zig-Zag" L-Loop Haptic Design.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A comparative study of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses combining bifocal and extended depth-of-focus profiles.International ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) combining bifocal and extended-depth-of-focus profiles (Symbiose: Artis Symbiose Plus; Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) was introduced. We compared the output with that of a standard monofocal IOL (PL E: Artis PL E). The two four-haptic hydrophobic IOLs were made of the same material from the same company. Cataract patients bilaterally implanted with either PL E or Symbiose between November 2021 and August 2022 were reviewed. The principal measures of the postoperative results were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA); corrected distance VA (CDVA); uncorrected intermediate VA; uncorrected near VA; objective optical quality; and distance-corrected defocus curves. This study included forty-eight patients (96 eyes), with 22 and 26 patients (44 and 52 eyes, respectively) being implanted with PL E and Symbiose, respectively. All patients received the same type of IOL implanted in both eyes. The average age of patients was 70.9 ± 7.1 and 60.0 ± 8.5 years in PL E and Symbiose groups, respectively, with significantly younger patients in Symbiose group (p < 0.001). Both IOLs displayed excellent UDVA and CDVA with no statistical difference (p = 0.081 (monocular UDVA), p = 0.599 (monocular CDVA), p = 0.204 (binocular UDVA), and p = 0.145 (binocular CDVA)). In comparison with PL E group, Symbiose group showed significantly superior postoperative intermediate and near VA (p < 0.001). PL E group showed significantly superior objective optical quality compared with Symbiose group (p < 0.001). Symbiose provides a continuous range of vision that ensures a seamless transition from far to near with no discontinuity. It also delivers a smooth defocus curve with a larger landing area than the PL E. But the objective optical quality was better in PL E.
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.