ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a New Enhanced Monofocal IOL and a Conventional Monofocal IOL.
Article 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 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of visual outcomes of enhanced monofocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Visual and patient-reported outcomes of an enhanced versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eye (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Selecting the myopic target for an enhanced monofocal IOL in highly myopic eyes: -2.0 D versus - 3.0 D.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- 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
- Prospective Randomized Study of Visual Outcomes with Mini-Monovision Between the Light-Adjustable Lens and Clareon Monofocal Toric Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Visual function and patient satisfaction with 3 types of monofocal plus intraocular lenses.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Article
- Enhanced Monovision Intraocular Lenses: Current Status and Future Perspectives-Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Clinical Outcomes and Optical Bench Analysis of a Novel Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lens.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Satisfaction and Visual and Refractive Outcomes Combining an Enhanced Monofocal and a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in Patients with Specific Visual Demands.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Impact of Intraocular Lens Design on Refractive Endpoint Selection: A Call for a New Paradigm.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Outcomes of mini-monovision with monofocal, enhanced monofocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- A comparative study and review of visual outcomes with enhanced versus standard monofocal intraocular lenses following cataract surgery.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
- Visual Performance and Subjective Outcomes with Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lens Implantation Targeted for Emmetropia or Modest Monovision.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of an Enhanced and Conventional Monofocal IOL in Patients with Early and Intermediate Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Evolux™ Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery: Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of the Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 IOL, designed to enhance intermediate vision, to a conventional Tecnis Monofocal ZCB00 IOL. Methods: This retrospective analysis compared two cohorts of patients undergoing lens replacement surgery with bilateral implantation of the Tecnis ICB00 or the Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (383 patients in each group). Monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA; 66cm), and near (UNVA; 40cm) visual acuities, refractive predictability, and patient-reported outcomes were compared. A sub-analysis of patients with the Eyhance IOL was performed to compare patients who achieved bilateral emmetropia to those with mini-monovision. One-month postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results: Both groups had comparable UDVA outcomes. On average, both monocular and binocular UIVAs were approximately one Snellen line better in patients implanted with Eyhance IOL (monocular UIVA: ICB00 0.23 ± 0.18 logMAR, ZCB00 0.33 ± 0.19 logMAR; binocular UIVA: ICB00 0.18 ± 0.18 logMAR, ZCB00 0.26 ± 0.20 logMAR, p < 0.01). Likewise, the mean UNVA was also one Snellen line better with the ICB00 model (monocular UNVA: ICB00 0.51 ± 0.20 logMAR, ZCB00 0.61 ± 0.18 logMAR; binocular UNVA: ICB00 0.42 ± 0.19 logMAR, ZCB00 0.51 ± 0.22 logMAR, p < 0.01). There was no difference between the two groups in overall satisfaction or visual phenomena. A subgroup of patients who achieved mini-monovision with Eyhance IOL had, on average, one Snellen line better UIVA and UNVA compared to patients with bilateral emmetropia. Conclusion: Patients receiving the enhanced monofocal IOL had better intermediate and near vision compared to those receiving the conventional monofocal IOL, with similar levels of patient-reported photic phenomena in both groups.
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.