ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Reasons for dissatisfaction after implantation of extended depth-of-focus and trifocal intraocular lenses: a retrospective case series.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo analyze the adverse visual symptoms, underlying causes of dissatisfaction, and the effectiveness of subsequent interventions after implantation of extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) and trifocal IOLs.
methodsThis retrospective case series included 307 patients (390 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification with presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation between January 2023 and July 2025. Patients were divided into an EDOF group (AcrySof IQ Vivity; 203 patients, 256 eyes) and a trifocal group (PanOptix TFNT00; 104 patients, 134 eyes). Seventy-five patients (75 eyes) who reported postoperative dissatisfaction were included in the analysis. Visual acuity, refractive status, wavefront aberrations, ocular surface conditions, posterior capsule status, and fundus findings were evaluated. Causes of dissatisfaction and outcomes of interventions were assessed.
resultsPostoperative dissatisfaction occurred in 47 eyes (23.2%) in the EDOF group and 28 eyes (26.9%) in the trifocal group, with no significant difference between groups (χ² = 0.530, P = 0.467). Uncorrected distance visual acuity did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.479), whereas uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuity were significantly better in the trifocal group (both P < 0.05). No significant intergroup differences were observed in postoperative visual quality index or total ocular aberrations, except for spherical aberration (P = 0.037). The primary causes of dissatisfaction were residual refractive errors, dry eye disease, posterior capsular opacification, and unmet visual expectations. Symptoms improved in 39 eyes after treatment, resulting in an overall intervention effectiveness rate of 95.1%.
conclusionsPostoperative dissatisfaction after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation is multifactorial and varies by IOL design. Individualized evaluation and tailored management strategies are essential to improve postoperative satisfaction.
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.