ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Comparison of Visual Performance Between Mix-and-Match and Bilateral Implantation of Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Clinical Outcomes After the Mix-and-Match Approach of Trifocal and Non-Diffractive EDOF IOL.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Real-World IOL Performance with Bilateral Plano Outcomes After Cataract Surgery: A Prospective, Comparative Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- A comparative study of extended depth of focus, bifocal intraocular lenses and their mix-and-match.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Review of Mix-and-Match Approach and Binocular Intraocular Lens Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in a mix-and-match approach or bilateral implantation. Methods: In this prospective study, patients were split into two groups based on the types of IOLs implanted. The mix group received mix-and-match implantation of a LENTIS Mplus LS-313 +1.50D IOL in the dominant eye and a LENTIS Mplus LS-313 +3.0D IOL in the fellow eye. The bilateral group received bilateral implantation of LENTIS Mplus LS-313 +3.00D IOLs. A three-month follow-up was performed after the surgery. Binocular visual acuity at various distances, subjective refraction and defocus curves were assessed. Subjective questionnaires included the overall satisfaction, a self-assessment of visual quality, spectacle independence, and presence of photic phenomena were completed. Results: The study was completed by 52 patients in total (25 mix-and-match, 27 bilateral). The mean binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity in the mix group and the bilateral group were 0.10 ± 0.12 logMAR and 0.23 ± 0.14 logMAR, respectively, demonstrating a significant difference (P = 0.005). The mix group performed better in intermediate vision (range: -1.00 to -2.00 D) than the bilateral group (all P< 0.05), according to binocular defocus curves. About 92.0% of patients in the mix group did not need spectacles for intermediate distance vision compared to 59.26% in the bilateral group (P = 0.0001). Conclusion: The mix-and-match implantation of the +1.50D and +3.00D rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOLs provided good binocular visual outcomes and resulted in better intermediate vision than bilateral implantation of +3.00D IOLs.
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.