ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparative Visual Outcomes and Complications of Light Adjustable Intraocular Lens Technology: A Scoping Review.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: A scoping review was completed to evaluate visual outcomes of the light adjustable lens (LAL) relative to alternative intraocular lenses (IOLs) and post-operative adverse events associated with the LAL. Methods: A structured search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was completed to identify primary studies of cataract surgery with LAL implantation. Results: Twenty studies (1743 eyes) were included. Six studies (30%) compared the visual performance of LAL to another IOL, reporting sphere (n = 2 studies), spherical equivalent (SE; n = 5), and residual cylinder (n = 6). Residual cylinder was lower with the LAL across all 6 studies, whereas comparative SE outcomes were variable. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was reported in 4 studies, with all 4 studies demonstrating improved UCVA with the LAL. Adverse events were reported in 18 studies (90%). Posterior capsular opacification or YAG capsulotomy was reported in the largest number of studies (n = 8 studies), with study-level proportions ranging from 0.7% to 28.6% of eyes. Macular edema was reported in 6 studies (0.6% to 10.9% of eyes) and secondary surgical interventions in 5 studies (1.0% to 12.5% of eyes). The first light delivery device (LDD) treatment was performed 17 to 24 days after surgery in 7 studies (35%). Conclusion: LAL technology is associated with reduced residual refractive cylinder and improved UCVA compared to monofocal IOLs. The small number of comparative studies and heterogeneity across sources limit the strength of this evidence. The potential for UV light contamination with first generation models and LDD treatment delays warrant consideration.
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.