Trial reportEye (London, England)2024
Tolerance to refractive error with a new extended depth of focus intraocular lens.
Trial report in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Performance After Implantation of a New Purely Refractive Extended Depth of Field Intraocular Lens in Cataract Patients.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Trial
- Patient-reported outcome measures after non-diffractive extended range of field IOL implantation: PureSee versus Vivity.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Premium Intraocular Lens Implantation After Laser Vision Correction: An Updated Narrative Review of Biometry, IOL Selection, Visual Outcomes, and Clinical Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- An Update on Intraocular Lens Technology for Presbyopia Correction and Visual Outcomes.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Cataract Surgery with Implantation of Either a Partial-Depth of Field Extended or Monofocal Intraocular Lens.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Factors Affecting Postoperative Satisfaction After Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lens.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Early Visual Performance and Subjective Experience After Bilateral Implantation of a Novel Fully Refractive Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Comparative Visual Performance and Optical Stability of Clareon Vivity and TECNIS PureSee EDoF IOLs in Cataract Patients.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- A Retrospective Study: Comparative Visual Performance of Two Non-Diffractive Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: TECNIS PureSee versus Clareon Vivity.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Clareon Vivity and PureSee intraocular lenses: optical quality, depth of focus and misalignment effects.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative Outcomes of the Next-Generation Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens and Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of Intraocular Lens Design on Refractive Endpoint Selection: A Call for a New Paradigm.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Optical Bench Evaluation of the Latest Refractive Enhanced Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Editorial: Insights in glaucoma: 2023.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the tolerance to refractive errors of a new purely refractive extended depth of focus (EDF) intraocular lens (IOL), TECNIS PureSee™ IOL, using preclinical and clinical metrics.
methodsPreclinical evaluation included computer simulations of visual acuity (sVA) and dysphotopsia profile of different IOL designs (refractive EDF, diffractive EDF, multifocal, standard, and enhanced monofocals) using an appropriate eye model with and without ±0.50 D defocus and/or +0.75 D of astigmatism. Patients bilaterally implanted with a refractive EDF (Model ZEN00V) or an enhanced monofocal (Model ICB00) IOL from a prospective, randomized study were included. At the 6-month postoperative visit, uncorrected and corrected distance vision (UDVA and CDVA), visual symptoms, satisfaction and dependency on glasses were evaluated in a subgroup of patients with absolute residual refractive error of >0.25 D in one or both eyes.
resultsIn the presence of defocus and astigmatism, sVA was comparable for all except the multifocal IOL design. The refractive EDF was more tolerant to myopic outcomes and maintained a monofocal-like dysphotopsia profile with defocus. Binocular logMAR UDVA was -0.03 ± 0.08 for ZEN00V and -0.02 ± 0.11 for ICB00. 100% ZEN00V and 97% ICB00 patients did not need glasses and were satisfied with their distance vision. Monocular CDVA, contrast sensitivity and visual symptoms were also similar between both groups.
conclusionsThe clinical outcomes of the refractive EDF IOL demonstrated high quality distance vision and dysphotopsia comparable to a monofocal IOL, even in the presence of refractive error, thus matching the design expectations of the EDF IOL.
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.