ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Secondary Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Dense Cataracts: A Promising Alternative to One-Step Surgery.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo compare the benefits of secondary trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantations versus one-step IOL implantations in managing dense cataracts.
methodsPatients with dense cataracts, a preoperative axis length (AL) of 21.00-27.00 mm, and corneal astigmatism ≤ 1.00 D were enrolled at Wuhan Aier Hankou Eye Hospital. Patients unsuitable for femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgeries (FLACS) were excluded. Patients who underwent one-step monofocal IOL implantations were involved in group A, and those who accepted two-step trifocal IOL implantations entered group B. Pre- and postoperative AL, corneal keratometry (K) value, visual acuity, and endothelial cell density (ECD) were measured. Postoperative spherical equivalent (SE), numerical error (NE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated.
resultsApplying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 42 eyes were finally included in group A, and 32 eyes were involved in group B. In group B, six eyes (15.79%) were identified as unsuitable for multifocal IOL (MIOL) implantation because of fundus diseases. Patients in group B achieved a greater proportion of SE and NE closer to 0 D. The postoperative MAE of group B was also obviously lower than that of group A. Uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA) of patients in group B was superior to that in group A during the 90-day postoperative follow-up period. Postoperative AL, surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), and ECD loss did not show significant differences between the two groups.
conclusionsCompared to one-step IOL implantation, the two-step approach allowed more accurate IOL power calculation, reduced refractive error, and better UDVA; did not increase SIA or ECD loss; and allowed for fundus disease screening, making it a good choice in dense cataracts for MIOL implantations.
trial registrationThis trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ ). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2100043570.
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.