Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41523122›Full record

ReviewTaiwan journal of ophthalmology

Management of positive and negative dysphotopsia postcataract surgery - A literature review.

Kujani Wanniarachchi, Jodhbir S Mehta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Taiwan journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens Based on Aberration-Neutral Technique.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kujani WanniarachchiSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jodhbir S MehtaSingapore Eye Research Institute, Regenerative Therapy Group, Refractive Surgery Group, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this review was to provide a summary of the literature on the etiologies and management of positive (PD) and negative dysphotopsia (ND) which are optical phenomena that occur after routine cataract surgery. A search of PubMed and Google Scholar identified 36 relevant papers. There is a consensus on the etiology of PD, which is attributed to the edge design of the intraocular lens (IOL). A truncated square edge can cause light of an oblique incidence to reflect onto the retinal surface and cause streaks and haloes in the visual field. Other causes of PD include diffractive multifocal IOLs and IOLs with a high index of refraction. The causes of ND are multifactorial; however, the majority of the evidence from experimental and clinical studies supports the "illumination gap" of the nasal retina which may arise from the anterior capsule overlying the IOL. Other factors such as pupil size, a high-angle kappa, and increased posterior chamber depth may also play a role. Regarding surgical management, ND has been successfully treated with reverse optic capture, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser capsulectomy, nasal IOL optic truncation, piggyback IOL, and an ND ring. Both PD and ND can be surgically managed by replacing the IOL using in-the-bag exchange or bag-to-sulcus exchange. Technological advancements have presented new avenues for developing antidysphotopsia lenses. Novel approaches utilize anterior capsulotomy fixation using IOL phalanges and a recent diffractive spiral lens that provides smooth full-range vision without dysphotopsia.

Indexed as

Cataractdysphotopsialens-exchangemultifocalpiggyback lensreverse optic capture

Identifiers

PMID41523122
PMCPMC12782528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.