ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Clinical performance and shape analysis of trifocal intraocular lenses via scanning electron microscopy.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Anterior Chamber Depth Changes of Two Hydrophobic Acrylic Intraocular Lenses in the Capsular Bag: A Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Eye, Multicenter Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Trial
- Early Clinical Outcomes After the Mix-and-Match Approach of Trifocal and Non-Diffractive EDOF IOL.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Refractive Accuracy of Intraoperative Aberrometry for a New-Material Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Multicenter, Prospective, and Observational Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- One-year outcomes of a trifocal intraocular lens with glistening-free hydrophobic acrylic using the mix-and-match technique.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Visual Outcomes and Quality of Vision After Bilateral Implantation of a Hydrophobic Acrylic Trifocal Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate visual performance after implantation of the TFNT (Acrysof Panoptix, Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas, USA) and CNWT (Clareon Panoptix, Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas, USA) intraocular lens (IOL), and compare the lens shape observed by scanning electron microscope (SEM).
methodsEighteen patients (18 eyes) received implantation of the CNWT and Twenty patients (20 eyes) received implantation of the TFNT. Exclusion criteria were previous ocular surgeries, ocular pathologies, or corneal abnormalities. Intervention or Observational Procedure(s): Postoperative examination at 1 months including manifest refraction; evaluation of refractive error, distance-corrected visual acuity (DCVA) at 5 m, 1 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, 40 cm, and 30 cm, slit-lamp examination; defocus curve testing; contrast sensitivity (CS) was performed. The lens shape of the TFNT and the CNWT was examined under SEM.
resultsMean spherical equivalent was 0.11 ± 0.41 D (CNWT group) and 0.12 ± 0.34 D (TFNT group) 1 month postoperation. DCVA and defocus curve showed no significant difference between the two groups. CS was significantly higher in CNWT group than TFNT group at spatial frequencies of 6 cycles per degree (cpd). Observation of the IOL with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) revealed that CNWT group had improved diffraction structure and edge processing accuracy compared to TFNT group.
conclusionThere was no significant difference between the two groups in the defocus curve and visual acuity at all distances. CS was better in the CNWT group than in the TFNT group. IOL surface features may affect CS.
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.