Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Clinical Outcomes of a Monofocal, Optimized, Aspheric IOL in Eyes with Different Degrees of Corneal Spherical Aberration.
Trial report 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the clinical outcomes of a monofocal, optimized, aspheric, intraocular lens (IOL) implanted in eyes with different degrees of corneal spherical aberration (SA) after cataract surgery. Methods: 54 eyes implanted with the CT LUCIA 621P IOL were analyzed at 3 months post-surgery. Refractive error, corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (photopic and mesopic), photopic and mesopic defocus curve and patient-reported outcome measures with the Catquest-9SF questionnaire were recorded. Eyes were categorized into 3 groups (18 eyes per group) based on their corneal SA (6-mm pupil): group A (0 to 0.2 μm), group B (>0.2 to 0.4 μm), and group C (>0.4 to 0.6 μm). Results: CDVA was similar between groups, showing mean values of -0.02±0.04, -0.04±0.05, and 0.01±0.11, for groups A, B, and C, respectively (P=0.094). In group A, 88.89% of eyes were within ±1.00D of spherical equivalent (SE) and with a refractive astigmatism of ≤1.00D, in group B, it was 94.4%, and, in group C, 88.89% of eyes were within ±1.00D and 94.4% of eyes ≤1.00D (SE: P=0.431). Contrast sensitivity functions were good and similar for all spatial frequencies (P>0.01). The area under the 7‑point defocus curves, both photopic and mesopic, did not differ between groups (photopic, P=0.596 and mesopic, P=0.548). All patients reported being either very or quite satisfied with their vision. Conclusion: Different degrees of corneal SA measured in our study do not affect the visual performance of eyes implanted with the CT LUCIA 621P IOL through the visual metrics assessed. This IOL may be used clinically to restore visual acuity in eyes with different corneal SA after undergoing cataract surgery.
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.