ReviewTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology
When trifocal IOLs disappoint: diagnostic and management pathway.
Review in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. 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
Trifocal presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) are widely used in cataract surgery and refractive lens exchange to expand functional vision across distance, intermediate, and near ranges and to reduce spectacle dependence. Despite generally favorable visual outcomes, some patients experience postoperative dissatisfaction related to dysphotopsia, reduced visual quality, or unmet functional expectations. Evidence suggests that, at 1 year, trifocal IOLs show no clear differences versus bifocal IOLs in uncorrected distance or near visual acuity, while uncorrected intermediate acuity may be improved, although certainty is low and reporting of adverse visual phenomena and quality-of-life outcomes is limited. Comparative studies with bifocal and extended depth-of-focus lenses suggest that trifocal IOLs may provide stronger near performance and greater spectacle independence, although photic phenomena such as halos may occur more frequently in some patients. Contemporary evidence indicates that dissatisfaction is multifactorial and may involve residual refractive error, dysphotopsia, ocular surface disease, neuroadaptation failure, and IOL-capsule complex abnormalities such as tilt, decentration, capsular contraction, or posterior capsule opacification. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on the epidemiology and contributors to trifocal IOL dissatisfaction and proposes a pragmatic diagnostic and management framework. The approach emphasizes symptom characterization, rigorous refraction and binocular testing, early ocular surface optimization, targeted evaluation of the IOL-capsule complex, and stepwise intervention sequencing, including deferring Nd:YAG capsulotomy until IOL exchange is unlikely. Standardized outcome sets and prospective trials of staged care pathways are needed to improve comparability and guide individualized treatment decisions.
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.