Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

Cruz, Diego Zamora-de La; Garzón, Marisol; Pulido‐London, Daniela; Jiménez-Corona, Aída; Zuñiga-Posselt, Karla; Bartlett, John; Gutiérrez, Mario; Chávez-Mondragón, Eduardo

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012648

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent retrospective study also revealed no significant difference between trifocal and bifocal IOLs in the uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near VA (21). Although Cruz and colleagues have published a Cochrane protocol of trifocal IOLs vs. bifocal IOLs after cataract extraction (26), and the full-text review has also been reported on June 18, 2020;(27) the reference of this review has been discounted due to the following limitations: (a) eligible patients were limited to ≥30 years with presbyopia; (b) insufficient eligible studies were included (23), and (c) pilot study which has duplicate data with subsequent formal study was considered (28). Therefore, it is necessary to update systematic reviews and meta-analysis by comprehensively investigating the comparative efficacy of trifocal and bifocal IOLs among patients receiving cataract surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparative Efficacy Between Trifocal and Bifocal Intraocular Lens Among Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhang

Jiang

Zhou³

et al. 2021

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The comparative efficacy of trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) remained uncertain among patients undergoing cataract surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to answer this question. PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched to capture relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Visual acuity (VA) and patient's satisfaction were regarded as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included residual sphere, spherical equivalence, residual cylinder, posterior capsular opacification (PCO), spectacle independence, and other complications. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan 5.2.0. A total of 9 studies (11 RCTs) with 297 participants (558 eyes) were included. Meta-analysis showed significant differences between trifocal and bifocal IOLs in the uncorrected near VA (mean difference [MD], −0.008; 95% confidence interval [Cl], −0.015 to −0.001; P = 0.028) and uncorrected intermediate VA (MD, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.02; P < 0.01). Trifocal IOLs were associated with decreased PCO incidence when compared to bifocal IOLs (relative risk [RR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.95; P = 0.03). Trifocal IOLs may be superior to bifocal IOLs because of its improved intermediate VA and reduced incidence of PCO.

show abstract