ArticleClinical case reports2024
Post cataract surgery refractive surprise due to intraocular lens mislabeling.
Article in Clinical case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Refractive Surprises After Cataract Surgery: Identification and Management in Optometric Practice- A Comprehensive Review.Clinical optometry · 2026Review
- Post cataract surgery refractive surprise due to intraocular lens mislabeling.Clinical case reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Key Clinical Message: If an intraocular lens (IOL) is incorrectly labeled, problems can arise for surgeons and patients. Precise biometry is important to accurately determine the IOL power and prevent the implantation of the wrong IOL. Labeling and verifying IOLs with accuracy is crucial to ensuring the best possible results of cataract surgery. Abstract: Mislabeling of IOLs can cause unpredictable problems for surgeons. However, we can prevent incorrect IOLs by using precise biometry to determine accurate IOL power and safely implant the correct IOL. A 50-year-old female with no medical or ocular history came to our clinic complaining of decreased vision in both eyes that had been ongoing for several months. After being diagnosed with cataracts, primary angle closure suspect, and high hyperopia, the patient underwent phacoemulsification surgery. A posterior chamber IOL was implanted, and visco-goniosynechialysis was performed. During follow-up appointments, it was discovered that the patient had an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/50 in her right eye, which was corrected to 20/20 with a + 7.00 D lens. Upon further evaluation, it was determined that the source of the error was due to a manufacturing mislabeling of the IOL power. The patient then underwent successful IOL exchange surgery, and her best-corrected visual acuity became 20/20 with no significant refraction. This case highlights an uncommon source of refractive surprise after phacoemulsification surgery, successfully managed with IOL exchange surgery using the same IOL power from a different brand.
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.