ArticleAdvances in therapy2023
Clinical Performance of New Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses: Comparison of Hydrophobic C-loop and Hydrophilic Plate-Haptic Platform.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining mini-monovision with monofocal plus intraocular lenses.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) represent a new type of lens, which should lead to a very good distance vision similar to monofocal IOLs and an improved intermediate vision without increasing the risk for photic phenomena.
methodsThe aim of this clinical observation/registry study was to directly compare two different IOL platforms (hydrophilic acrylic L-333 (group A) vs hydrophobic acrylic AN6Q (group B)) with the same enhanced monofocal optic principle but different material and haptic design in clinical routine. A total of 102 cataract cases (51:51) were included in the study. Groups A and B were similar regarding demographics, age (71.6 ± 9 years for L-333 and 73.6 ± 8 years for AN6Q) and their calculated IOL power (20.9 ± 2.0 D for L-333 and 21.5 ± 3.4 D for AN6Q). Spherical equivalent (SE), (un)corrected distance, intermediate visual acuity, the surgeons' experience and patient feedback were assessed postoperatively.
resultsSE improved significantly in the AN6Q group, while the L-333 group showed a slightly smaller standard deviation postoperatively. In group A the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) improved from pre-op (0.43 ± 0.16 logMAR) to 1 month post-op (0.06 ± 0.04 logMAR) significantly and in group B from pre-op (0.54 ± 0.19 logMAR) to (0.05 ± 0.06 logMAR) postoperatively. Both groups showed excellent outcomes for distance without negative side effects. On testing uncorrected intermediate vision (80 cm) with Radner charts, 80% reached line 5 (0.0 logRAD) with fewer than one mistake and 10% reached line 4 (- 0.1 logRAD) in group A; 74% reached line 5 with fewer than one mistake and 4% reached line 4 in group B.
conclusionBoth IOL models (groups A and B) provided satisfying results regarding implantation behaviour, refractive error, visual acuity and overall patient satisfaction. The haptic design might influence the outcome of refractive error. Long-term follow-up data should be considered in multicentre studies to further characterize both platforms and to optimize IOL power calculation (constants, surgeon factor). It was shown that the enhanced monofocal optic can provide good visual acuity for far distance and improve intermediate distance. This type of new monofocal optic design, which however must be strictly separated from typical refractive/diffractive multifocal, presbyopia-correcting lenses, could be a good option in standard cataract care.
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.