ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Refractive Accuracy of Intraoperative Aberrometry for a New-Material Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Multicenter, Prospective, and Observational Study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated the refractive accuracy of the Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) system in eyes implanted with a new-material trifocal intraocular lens (IOL), CNWT (Clareon PanOptix), and compared it to preoperative IOL power calculation formulas. Patients and Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, CNWTT0 was implanted based on intraoperative ORA measurements. The absolute refractive prediction error (RPE) and the percentage of eyes with the absolute RPE were compared between ORA and three formulas: Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), Barrett Universal II (Barrett U II), and Haigis. Monocular uncorrected distance (UCVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near visual acuity (UNVA) were evaluated. Results: Seventy-eight eyes (78 patients) were included. Mean absolute RPE for ORA, SRK/T, Barrett U II, and Haigis were 0.24 ± 0.20, 0.28 ± 0.20, 0.23 ± 0.19, and 0.35 ± 0.24 diopters (D), respectively. ORA showed significantly lower absolute RPE than Haigis (p<0.001), but no significant difference from SRK/T and Barrett U II. Significant differences were also found between Barrett U II and SRK/T (p<0.004) and between Barrett U II and Haigis formulas (p<0.0001). The percentage of eyes with an absolute RPE ≤ 0.25 D was significantly higher with ORA (61.5%) and Barrett U II (65.4%) than those with SRK/T and Haigis (p<0.05 for both comparisons). No significant differences were observed for the absolute RPE ≤ 0.5 D among the groups. The mean ± standard deviation UCVA, UIVA, and UNVA were -0.01 ± 0.07, 0.08 ± 0.12, and 0.06 ± 0.10 logMAR, respectively. Conclusion: The ORA system provides accurate refractive prediction and favorable clinical outcomes for the new trifocal IOL. Whereas its accuracy was comparable to that of the Barrett Universal II formula, the ORA system achieved more favorable outcomes than conventional formulas. Integrating intraoperative validation with preoperative calculations offers a robust strategy to minimize refractive surprises and optimize clinical results.
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.