ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2026
Advances and Challenges in Sulcus-Implanted Intraocular Lenses: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.
Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleSulcus implantation of intraocular lenses (IOLs) is an essential strategy when capsular support is inadequate or postoperative refractive correction is required. Evidence on safety, design considerations, and clinical outcomes is extensive but heterogeneous.
objectivesTo synthesise current evidence on indications, visual outcomes, and complication profiles of sulcus-implanted IOLs, and to highlight design-dependent factors influencing predictability and safety.
methodsA narrative review was conducted using PubMed and manual reference screening. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of sulcus-positioned IOLs-including three-piece lenses, supplementary/add-on lenses, and sulcus-placed primary IOLs-were included. Numerical values are presented as reported, without standardised pooling or comparative analysis.
resultsFifty studies met the inclusion criteria. Across indications such as aphakia, zonular weakness, IOL dislocation, capsular rupture, and refractive enhancement, postoperative visual acuity was generally stable, with mean improvements commonly ranging from 0.10 to 0.30 logMAR in appropriately selected cases. Complications varied substantially by IOL design. Three-piece lenses showed low rates of cystoid macular oedema (1-8%), pigment dispersion (0-12%), and intraocular pressure elevation (1-9%). In contrast, single-piece acrylic lenses demonstrated consistently higher risk of uveal chafing, pigment dispersion, intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation, and uveitis-glaucoma-hyphaema (UGH) syndrome. Purpose-designed sulcus and add-on lenses demonstrated good centration, low decentration or tilt, and predictable reversibility. Endothelial safety was generally comparable to standard cataract surgery when sulcus-appropriate designs were used.
conclusionsSulcus implantation is a versatile and reliable option when the capsular bag is compromised or supplementary correction is required. Outcomes and safety are strongly design-dependent, with three-piece and sulcus-specific add-on lenses showing the most favourable profiles. Further prospective studies are needed to refine long-term risk assessment and design-based recommendations.
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.