ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparison of Astigmatic Outcomes with an Ultra-Low Cylinder Power (0.90 D) Toric versus a Non-Toric Intraocular Lens for Eyes with Low Astigmatism.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Evaluate postoperative astigmatic outcomes in eyes implanted with an ultra-low cylinder powered toric (ULPT) intraocular lens (IOL) compared with a non-toric IOL for the surgical management of astigmatism in cataract surgery. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective, controlled consecutive case series from 3 Canadian ophthalmology centers. Cases were included if they were adults (≥18 years), qualified for the 0.90D toric based on the Barrett Toric Calculator without "flipping" the axis of astigmatism by 0.2D or more, and underwent surgery either with the enVista Toric 0.9 D IOL (ULPT, Bausch + Lomb) or enVista Non-toric (spherical). All surgeries were performed using standard phacoemulsification and IOL implantation under topical anesthesia with 2.0 to 2.2-mm biplanar square clear corneal incision at 190° for OD and 10° for OS. The mean±SD incision angle was 94.0±89.70° for the ULPT group and 103.0±89.37° for the non-toric group. Primary effectiveness endpoint was the mean reduction in cylindrical power of the eye. Other endpoints were manifest refraction, keratometry, visual acuity, IOL axis, and safety. Results: 290 screened patient charts were enrolled and included 383 eyes (192 eyes with the ULPT IOL and 191 eyes with the non-toric IOL). The mean reduction in cylindrical power was 0.432±0.447 D in the Toric 0.9 D IOL group and 0.071±0.407 D in the Non-toric group, with the mean difference (0.351 D) in favor of the ULPT IOL (P<0.0001). Significantly more of the ULPT group than the Non-toric group had plano outcomes or had a cumulative residual cylinder within 0.25 D, 0.50 D, and 0.75 D of plano (P≤0.001 for all). There were no serious AEs reported in patient charts. Conclusion: The ULPT IOL was safe and effective for eyes with low to ultra-low preoperative astigmatism and resulted in significantly greater reduction in postoperative manifest cylinder compared to the monofocal IOL.
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.