ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Real-World IOL Performance with Bilateral Plano Outcomes After Cataract Surgery: A Prospective, Comparative 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare visual performance and patient satisfaction of various intraocular lenses (IOLs) in individuals who underwent bilateral cataract extraction with plano outcomes. Methods: Patients underwent staged, bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of AcrySof PanOptix Trifocal, AcrySof SA60 Monofocal, or TECNIS Eyhance monofocal IOLs. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon using femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. Patients were followed postoperatively at day one, one month, and three months. A validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire, Refractive Cataract Surgery Survey (RCSS), was performed at one month. Exclusion criteria included postoperative spherical equivalent > 0.5 diopters and/or cylinder > 0.75 diopters in either eye. Outcomes were analyzed per patient; thus, both eyes were excluded if the above criteria was not met. Results: The study included 242 eyes of 121 patients, consisting of 62 (51.2%) females and 59 (48.8%) males with a mean age of 66.8 ± 8.2 years (range 31-83 years). A total of 66 eyes (27.2%) received the SA60 IOL, 124 eyes (51.3%) received the PanOptix Trifocal IOL, and 52 eyes (21.5%) received the Eyhance IOL. Toric IOL selection occurred in 65% for SA60, 50% for Eyhance, and 49% for PanOptix. The SA60 showed better uncorrected distance visual acuity compared to other lenses (p < 0.05). The PanOptix showed significantly better binocular uncorrected near visual acuity compared to other lenses (p < 0.001). RCSS lens satisfaction scores were highest with the PanOptix despite having the highest level of dysphotopsia. Conclusion: Overall lens satisfaction was highest with the PanOptix IOL despite having the highest prevalence and severity of dysphotopsias. Some patients may prioritize functional spectacle independence at all distances, explaining high satisfaction rates despite optical trade-offs such as diffractive dysphotopsias.
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.