Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38584723›Full record

Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci.

Hakan Kaymak, Richard Potvin, Kai Neller, Karsten Klabe, Robert Donald Anello, NINO Study Group

Abstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Presbyopia Correction in Lens Replacement Surgery: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Recent Advances in Refractive Surgery: An Overview.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hakan KaymakInternationale Innovative Ophthalmochirurgie GbR, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Richard PotvinScience in Vision, Frisco, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0964-5035
Kai NellerInternationale Innovative Ophthalmochirurgie GbR, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Karsten KlabeInternationale Innovative Ophthalmochirurgie GbR, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Robert Donald AnelloGlobal Clinical and Medical Affairs, Hoya Surgical Optics, Irvine, CA, USA.
NINO Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes after bilateral or contralateral implantation of the Gemetric™ (G) and Gemetric™ Plus (GPlus) diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, multi-center open-label study comparing clinical results and subjective patient responses around 6 months after implantation of the study lenses (toric and non-toric) in three different groups (bilateral G, bilateral GPlus and contralateral G/GPlus implantation). Results included the manifest refraction, uncorrected and distance corrected monocular and binocular visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate and near; the defocus curve; contrast sensitivity; and patient reported outcomes regarding spectacle independence, satisfaction and visual disturbances. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean refraction spherical equivalent between the two lens models (p = 0.33) or between the toric and non-toric lenses (p = 0.06). Monocular VA was better at distance with the G lens and better at near with the GPlus lens (p < 0.01). Mean binocular VA was better than 0.1 logMAR at all distances for all groups, both uncorrected and distance corrected. The mean binocular distance corrected VA was better than 0.15 logMAR from 0.0 D to -3.50 D for all groups. All VA data for the contralateral group was as good or better than for the bilateral GPlus group. Questionnaire results showed no difference between groups for the frequency, severity, or degree of bother of visual disturbances (p > 0.24). Conclusion: The two diffractive trifocal IOLs studied here may be used either bilaterally or contralaterally for the correction of presbyopia in cataract patients, providing excellent visual acuity with low levels of visual disturbances and high rates of overall spectacle independence. Bilateral Gemetric implantation resulted in slightly better distance and intermediate vision while contralateral implantation provided slightly better near vision. There was no apparent advantage to implanting the GPlus IOL bilaterally.

Indexed as

diffractiveGemetric™Gemetric™ Pluspresbyopia-correctingtrifocalVivinex™

Identifiers

PMID38584723
PMCPMC10999202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.