ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Clinical Outcomes of a Multicenter Study Following Implantation of an Isofocal Optic IOL with Double C-Loop Haptics.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes of an Isofocal Optic-Design Intraocular Lens with Double C-Loop Haptics in Eyes with Glaucoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Double C-Loop Haptic Intraocular Lenses Across Different Optic Designs: A Retrospective Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of an Isofocal Toric Intraocular Lens with Double C-Loop Haptics: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To report clinical outcomes in patients implanted with an isofocal optic-design intraocular lens (IOL) with double C-loop haptics following cataract surgery. Methods: This was a multicentre-prospective-study involving 108 eyes (54 subjects) implanted with the Isopure Serenity (BVI, Inc). IOL. At least 3 months after the surgery, the following parameters were analysed: refraction, monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and distance corrected-intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) both at 80 and 66 cm, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm. In addition, the binocular defocus curve was measured. Results: 79.63% and 98.15% of eyes were within ±0.50D and ±1.00D of the target spherical equivalent, respectively. 68.41% and 98.15% of eyes had a UDVA and CDVA of 20/20 or better, respectively, with 88.89% and 99.07% achieving 20/25 or better, respectively (the mean values for UDVA and CDVA were 0.02±0.11 and -0.04±0.05 logMAR, respectively). 77.14% and 39.39% of eyes achieved a DCIVA of 20/32 or better at 80 cm and 66 cm, respectively, and 90% and 72.73% achieved a DCIVA of 20/40 or better at 80 and 66 cm, respectively (the mean values for DCIVA were 0.19±0.10 and 0.28±0.11 logMAR, 80 cm and at 66 cm, respectively). 25% and 15.15% of eyes had a UNVA and DCNVA of 20/32 or better, respectively, with 39.81% and 31.82% achieving a UNVA and DCNVA of 20/40 or better, respectively (mean values for UNVA and DCNVA were 0.37±0.15 logMAR and 0.40±0.13 logMAR, respectively). The defocus curve showed a peak of visual acuity at far distance with a depth-of-focus value of about 1.75D. Conclusion: Patients implanted with the new Isopure Serenity IOL with double C-loop haptics showed good visual performance at far distance with functional intermediate vision and accurate refractive outcomes.
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.