ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Satisfaction and Visual and Refractive Outcomes Combining an Enhanced Monofocal and a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in Patients with Specific Visual Demands.
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 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.
- Monofocal intraocular lens based on the Bessel principle for improved intermediate vision: a comparative assessment.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of the First Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Literature Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Bilateral Refractive Lens Exchange with a Hydrophobic Trifocal Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Nd:YAG Capsulotomy Rates of Three FineVision Trifocal Intraocular Lens Platform Across Different Platforms: Results from a Multicenter Clinical Registry 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To assess subjective satisfaction and visual and refractive outcomes after combining an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and trifocal IOL in patients with specific visual demands. Methods: Patients underwent refractive lens exchange and received an enhanced monofocal lens (Tecnis Eyhance) in the dominant eye and a trifocal lens (FineVision) in the nondominant eye. At least 3 months after surgery, we evaluated subjective satisfaction, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, and efficacy. Results: Sixty eyes from 30 patients met the inclusion criteria. At completion, postoperative binocular logMAR UNVA, UIVA, and UDVA were 0.10, 0.30, and 0.00, respectively. The change in visual acuity (before and after surgery, binocular) was statistically significant for UNVA and UDVA (p<0.01 and 0.004, respectively). Safety was better for the enhanced monofocal lens than for the trifocal lens (p=0.032), with no statistically significant differences in efficacy between the eyes. No eyes lost lines of CDVA. Predictability for ±0.5 D and ±1 D was better in eyes with FineVision and Eyhance, respectively, although the differences were not statistically significant. Patient satisfaction was high, enabling most patients to meet their special visual needs. Conclusion: Combining an enhanced monofocal IOL in the dominant eye with a trifocal IOL in the nondominant eye provides considerable satisfaction and spectacle independence and is safe and efficacious in patients with special visual requirements.
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.