ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Transparency loss due to the whitening of trifocal hydrophobic intraocular lenses (IOLs) is a rare but poorly understood phenomenon. This study investigates its characteristics, underlying mechanisms, and clinical impact to determine its relevance for patient care. Methods: A clinical and laboratory analysis was conducted on affected IOLs. Two patients with bilateral trifocal IOL implantation, where one eye exhibited whitening, underwent visual performance testing, light distortion assessment, optical coherence tomography, Scheimpflug imaging, and patient-reported outcome evaluations. An explanted IOL was examined using microscopic and optical bench methods, and attempts were made to replicate the whitening process Results: Clinical findings showed that IOL whitening had minimal impact on visual acuity and light distortion, with no significant impairment reported in patient-reported outcomes. Imaging and laboratory analysis suggested that whitening is caused by subsurface nanoglistening (SSNG), a previously unreported phenomenon in this IOL material. The modulation transfer function of the affected IOLs remained comparable to control lenses, and Discussion: This study provides the first evidence of SSNG in this hydrophobic IOL material, demonstrating that while whitening can occur, its clinical significance is generally low. Given the predominantly subjective nature of symptoms, management should be individualized, with explantation decisions made in close consultation with the patient. These findings contribute to a better understanding of IOL material stability and patient counseling in cases of transparency loss.
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.