Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Mar 14;19(1):78.
doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1078-1.

Comparison of postoperative visual performance between bifocal and trifocal intraocular Lens based on randomized controlled trails: a meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of postoperative visual performance between bifocal and trifocal intraocular Lens based on randomized controlled trails: a meta-analysis

Shanshan Jin et al. BMC Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Background: To compare the clinical performance of bifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials was conducted.

Methods: A comprehensive literature retrieval of PubMed, Science Direct and EMBASE was performed in this systematic review. Clinical outcomes included visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction.

Results: There were 8 RCTs included in this study. The difference of uncorrected near VA (UNVA) between the bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs had no significance [MD = 0.02, 95%CI: (- 0.03,0.06)]. There was no significant difference in the distant-corrected near VA (DCNVA) with MD of 0.04 [95%CI (- 0.02, 0.10)]. Compared with trifocal group, the uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) [MD = 0.09,95%CI:(0.01,0.17)] was significantly worse in the bifocal group. No difference was found in distance-corrected intermediate VA (DCIVA) [MD = 0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.04, 0.23)] between two groups. Analysis on AT LISA subgroup indicated the bifocal group had worse intermediate VA than trifocal group (AT LISA tri 839 M) [MD = 0.18, 95%CI: (0.12, 0.24) for UIVA and MD = 0.19, 95%CI: (0.13, 0.25) for DCIVA]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the uncorrected distance VA (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) [MD = 0.01, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.04) for UDVA; MD = 0.00, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.01) for CDVA]. The postoperative refraction of bifocal group was similar to that of trifocal group [MD = -0.08, 95% CI: (- 0.19, 0.03) for spherical equivalent; MD = -0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.21, 0.03) for cylinder; MD = -0.09, 95% CI: (- 0.27, 0.08) for sphere]. No difference was found for spectacle independence, posterior capsular opacification (PCO) incidence and patient satisfaction between bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs. [RR = 0.89, 95% CI: (0.71, 1.12) for spectacle independence; RR = 1.81, 95% CI: (0.50, 6.54) for PCO incidence; RR = 0.98, 5% CI: (0.86, 1.12) for patient satisfaction].

Conclusion: Patients receiving trifocal IOLs, especially AT LISA tri 839 M, have a better intermediate VA than those receiving bifocal IOLs. Near and distance visual performance, spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction of bifocal IOLs were similar to those of trifocal IOLs.

Keywords: Bifocal; Cataract surgery; IOLs; Intraocular lenses; Meta-analysis; Randomized; Trifocal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

No authors have a financial and proprietary interest in any material and method mentioned. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of paper selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
“Risk of bias” graph: Each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
“Risk of bias” summary: Each risk of bias item for each included study
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot of UNVA
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Funnel plot of UNVA
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot of DCNVA
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Forest plot of UIVA
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Funnel plot of UIVA
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Forest plot of DCIVA
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Forest plot of CIVA
Fig. 11
Fig. 11
Forest plot of UDVA
Fig. 12
Fig. 12
Forest plot of CDVA
Fig. 13
Fig. 13
Forest plot of spectacle independence
Fig. 14
Fig. 14
Forest plot of spherical equivalent refraction
Fig. 15
Fig. 15
Forest plot of refractive cylinder
Fig. 16
Fig. 16
Forest plot of residual sphere
Fig. 17
Fig. 17
Forest plot of PCO
Fig. 18
Fig. 18
Forest plot of patient satisfaction

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Blindness: vision 2020 - the global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness. https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs213/en/. Accessed 2 May 2018.
    1. Cheng JW, Cheng SW, Cai JP, Li Y, Wei RL. The prevalence of visual impairment in older adults in mainland China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmic Res. 2013;49(1):1–10. - PubMed
    1. YB L, DS F, TY W, SY Z, LP S, JJ W, XR D, XH Y, FH W, Q Z, et al. Prevalence and causes of low vision and blindness in a rural chinese adult population: the Handan eye study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(11):1965–1972. - PubMed
    1. Tan X, Lin H, Li YT, Huang L, Zhu Y, Ni Y, Huang WY, Liu Y. Cataract screening in a rural area of southern China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2016;2016:S53.
    1. Kohnen T. How far we have come: from Ridley's first intraocular lens to modern IOL technology. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(12):2039. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources