ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction of an Enhanced Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Targeted for Mini-Monovision.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of visual performance among three higher-order aspheric enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses and a standard aspheric monofocal lens.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2025Trial
- An Update on Intraocular Lens Technology for Presbyopia Correction and Visual Outcomes.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative Visual Outcomes and Complications of Light Adjustable Intraocular Lens Technology: A Scoping Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Outcomes of mini-monovision with monofocal, enhanced monofocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Impact of Intraocular Lens Design on Refractive Endpoint Selection: A Call for a New Paradigm.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Visual, Refractive, Functional, and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes After Implantation of a New Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the clinical outcomes, the rate of spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction of an enhanced depth of focus (EDOF) LuxSmart™ IOL targeted for mini-monovision in patients who had undergone bilateral cataract surgery. Methods: Twenty patients underwent bilateral LuxSmart IOL implantation with the non-dominant eye targeted for -0.50 diopters. Best-corrected distance (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 66 cm, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm, and defocus curve were assessed. Patient-reported visual function was inquired by Catquest-9SF, and the rate of spectacle independence in all daily-life activities was calculated. The presence of photic phenomena was evaluated. A Results: The mean IOL power was +21.50 ± 4D (16.5-26D), and all were non-toric. Thirty-seven (92.5%) eyes were within ±0.5D of predicted target. The postoperative MRSE was 0.06 ± 0.42D and -0.45 ± 0.22D in dominant and non-dominant eyes. Every patient achieved distance binocular vision better than 0.1 logMAR. The non-dominant eyes showed lower CDVA ( Conclusion: This study shows that LuxSmart EDOF IOL in mini-monovision strategy performs well for distance and intermediate vision. Although visual acuity for near also achieved very good results, the considerable rate of spectacle dependence, in particular for near, and the rate of photic phenomena do not support this IOL to be safely implanted in patients desiring spectacle independence at time of cataract surgery.
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.