ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Outcomes of Extended Monofocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation by a Trainee Surgeon in an Australian Tertiary Public Hospital.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the visual and patient reported outcomes of an enhanced monofocal (EM) and refractive extended depth of focus (rEDOF) intraocular lenses (IOL) implanted by a senior trainee in a tertiary referral hospital. Patients and Methods: A prospective case-series with a retrospective comparison group was conducted at Westmead Hospital Eye Clinic, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Patients had monocular implantation of an EM (Tecnis Eyhance ICB00) or rEDOF (Lentis Comfort LS-313 MF15 or Acunex Vario Toric AN6VT) IOL. Phacoemulsification was performed by a single trainee surgeon and data was entered into the Cataract & Lens Exchange Analysis & Register log. Primary outcomes were unaided distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA), visual disturbance (glare, halo, starburst) and satisfaction with vision. Results: EM was used in 25 eyes, rEDOF was used in 33 eyes, and a monofocal group of 20 eyes was established retrospectively. Mean monocular UDVA was lowest in the EM and rEDOF groups (UDVA: mono 0.13 ± 0.12 logMAR, EM 0.02 ± 0.13 logMAR, rEDOF 0.05 ± 0.13 logMAR). The UIVA and UNVA were superior in the rEDOF group compared with the monofocal group (UIVA: rEDOF 0.19 ± 0.12 vs mono 0.36 ± 0.22 logMAR, p = 0.011; UNVA: rEDOF 0.45 ± 0.17 vs mono 0.66 ± 0.15 logMAR, p = 0.002). Glare was prevalent in the EM and monofocal groups, and starburst and halos were greatest in the rEDOF group. Satisfaction with vision was high in all groups. Conclusions: Both EM and rEDOF IOLs were successfully implanted by a trainee surgeon, with the benefits of improved refractive outcomes over monofocal IOLs and high satisfaction scores. Dysphotopsias were similar between the EM and monofocal IOLs. This study shows that rEDOF and EM IOLs are an ideal premium IOL choice for training centres who wish to expand their IOL options.
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.