Comparison Between Mix-and-Match Implantation of Bifocal Intraocular Lenses and Bilateral Implantation of Trifocal Intraocular Lenses

Bilbao-Calabuig, Rafael; González-López, Félix; Amparo, Ferrer; Alvarez, Gemma; Patel, Samip; Llovet‐Osuna, Fernando

doi:10.3928/1081597x-20160630-01

Cited by 58 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2a and b, Table 2, Supplementary Table S3) and analyses including only RCTs did not reveal any statistically difference between the trifocal and bifocal groups (MD −0.03; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.01; p = 0.13 for UDVA and MD −0.00; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.01; p = 0.78 for CDVA)2345. The quality of the evidence was moderate to high.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…From these 40 citations, 32 studies were excluded for the following reasons: 15 did not fulfill inclusion criteria, 15 studies did not provide primary outcomes, and two were duplications. Four RCTs2345 and four prospective cohorts1678 were ultimately included in this meta-analysis. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram for the search and selection process.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The eight studies were all conducted in European countries: France4, Norway15, the Netherlands2, the Czech Republic6, and Spain378. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the included studies, and their quality is assessed in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At present, most multifocal IOLs are bifocal, with only near and far foci; the quality of intermediate viewing activities such as computer use might be insufficient for daily life345. Manufacturers have recently introduced multifocal IOLs that are trifocal in design, providing functional far, intermediate, and near vision2678.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been several studies comparing visual outcomes after the implantation of bifocal and trifocal IOLs in recent years12345678. Some studies support the notion of trifocal IOLs as the next generation of multifocal IOLs, which improve intermediate vision and the continuum of functional vision without impairing distance and near vision567.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shen

Lin

Zhu

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the visual effects of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) compared to bifocal IOLs in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis of prospective comparative clinical trials (including 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohorts) was conducted. The defocus curves showed a better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (VA) for the trifocal group (MD −0.07; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.05; p < 0.00001), while the VA outcomes showed no significant difference in distance VA (MD −0.03; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.01; p = 0.13 for uncorrected distance VA and MD −0.00; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.01; p = 0.78 for distance-corrected distance VA), near VA (MD −0.01; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.04; p = 0.68 for uncorrected near VA and MD −0.01; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.04; p = 0.66 for distance-corrected near VA) or refraction between the two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality yielded less conclusive results. Overall, a patient may achieve better intermediate VA with a trifocal IOL than with a bifocal IOL without any adverse effect on distance or near VA. The findings on contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality were heterogeneous, with no clear results favoring either option.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shen

Lin

Zhu

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceA bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.Data SourcesMedline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.Study SelectionBased on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.Data Extraction and SynthesisDescriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.ResultsThis NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, −0.32 [95% CrI, −0.46 to −0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, −0.33 [95% CrI, −0.50 to −0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.Conclusions and RelevanceFor patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.

show abstract

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia

Cruz¹,

Zuñiga-Posselt

Bartlett³

et al. 2020

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison Between Mix-and-Match Implantation of Bifocal Intraocular Lenses and Bilateral Implantation of Trifocal Intraocular Lenses

Abstract: Binocular implantation of the FineVision trifocal IOL provided a better range of visual acuities at near and intermediate distances than mix-and-match bifocal IOL implantation. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(10):659-663.].

Cited by 58 publications

References 15 publications

Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About