ArticleMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2025
A comparative study and review of visual outcomes with enhanced versus standard monofocal intraocular lenses following cataract surgery.
Article in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2025. 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.
- Real-World Experience with Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses Following Cataract Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Case Series.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study of the Visual Outcomes of Two Common Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses in a Matched Cohort.Cureus · 2026Article
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
Background: Recent innovations in intraocular lens (IOL) design have introduced extended depth of focus lenses, which has shown promise in improving visual acuity at multiple distances while preserving the distance vision provided by a standard monofocal IOL. This study aimed to evaluate the visual outcomes of TECNIS Eyhance, a monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function, and a standard TECNIS monofocal 1-piece IOL, and to review published studies comparing the clinical performance between the TECNIS Eyhance and standard IOLs. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent cataract extraction with bilateral implantation of either TECNIS Eyhance IOLs or TECNIS Monofocal 1-Piece IOLs. Primary outcomes included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and manifest refraction. Outcomes such as glare, halos, and dry eye were also assessed. A literature review was performed to identify studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of TECNIS Eyhance and standard TECNIS monofocal IOLs. Results: In total 108 patients (216 eyes) underwent bilateral implantation with either TECNIS Eyhance (104 eyes) or TECNIS Monofocal 1-Piece (112 eyes) IOLs. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) binocular UNVA was better in the Eyhance group at 1 month (0.18 [0.13] logMAR) compared to the standard monofocal group (0.24 [0.14] logMAR; Conclusions: Patients receiving the TECNIS Eyhance IOL had better binocular UNVA compared to those with a standard monofocal IOL, consistent with published literature. The Eyhance IOL also showed better binocular UIVA and monocular UNVA across the studies reviewed. Both enhanced and standard monofocal IOLs demonstrate excellent distance vision and have similar levels of photic phenomena. Nevertheless, the Eyhance IOL shows promising potential for improving intermediate and near vision.
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.