Accommodative intraocular lens versus standard monofocal intraocular lens implantation in cataract surgery

Ong, Hon Shing; Allan, Bruce

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009667

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Functional assessment of AC-IOLs versus MF-IOLs in cataract surgery has been investigated by previous meta-analyses. [ 13 , 14 ] Our results also differ from previous meta-analysis because of the additional studies included. Recently, Ong et al [ 14 ] conducted a meta-analysis, which involved 256 eyes from 5 studies.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…[ 13 , 14 ] Our results also differ from previous meta-analysis because of the additional studies included. Recently, Ong et al [ 14 ] conducted a meta-analysis, which involved 256 eyes from 5 studies. Compared with Ong's work, we identified 12 additional eligible studies [ 24 – 26 , 28 , 30 , 32 – 38 ] and our study involved 1764 eyes from 17 studies.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…DCNVA improved significantly with both groups in our study. The results of our study were consistent with 2 previous meta-analyses, [ 13 , 14 ] which also found slight to moderate improvement in DCNVA with AC-IOLs over MF-IOLs. However, we noted a significant statistical heterogeneity between the trials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Functional assessment of AC-IOLs versus MF-IOLs in cataract surgery has been investigated by 2 previous meta-analyses. [ 13 , 14 ] However, the results from these meta-analyses remain inconclusive and conflicting. Moreover, spectacle independence was not evaluated by systematic synthesis in the previous meta-analyses owing to the limited number of available studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The efficacy of accommodative versus monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract patients

Zhou¹,

Zhu²,

Xu³

et al. 2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The efficacy of accommodative versus monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract patients

Zhou¹,

Zhu²,

Xu³

et al. 2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, Mplus IOLs also performed better than accommodating IOLs, but the difference was not as clinically significant (0.09 logMAR). This was an encouraging result since a previous meta-analysis had already shown that accommodating IOLs can restore satisfying near vision without compromising distance vision [ 20 ]. However, almost no difference was found between Mplus and low-add refractive-diffractive bifocal IOLs (+3 D).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2018

Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs. Methods A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up to February 2017 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies. Main outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), MTF, Strehl ratio, and residual sphere and cylinder. Results Mplus provided significantly worse UDVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.13, P=0.008), but significantly better UIVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P < 0.00001), spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.12, P < 0.0001), and accommodating IOLs (WMD: −0.21, P < 0.00001). Mplus provided significantly worse UNVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.07, P < 0.00001), but significantly better UNVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P < 0.00001). Mplus resulted in significantly higher HOAs than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.38, P < 0.00001) and spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.51, P=0.0004). Mplus provided a significantly lower MTF cut-off and Strehl ratio than other type of IOLs. Conclusion The Mplus IOLs perform best regarding intermediate visual acuity whereas they lack in distance visual acuity compared to monofocal IOLs and near visual acuity compared to bifocal IOLs. These results may be due to structure of Mplus IOLs resulting in higher-order aberrations.

show abstract