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
. 2022 Nov 1;140(11):1045-1053.
doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.3667.

Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Jeong-Yeon Cho  1 , Yeo Kyoung Won  2 , Jongyeop Park  3 , Jin Hyun Nam  4 , Ji-Yoon Hong  5 , Serim Min  1 , Nahyun Kim  1 , Tae-Young Chung  2 , Eui-Kyung Lee  1 , Sun-Hong Kwon  1 , Dong Hui Lim  2   6
Affiliations

Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Jeong-Yeon Cho et al. JAMA Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Importance: A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.

Objective: To compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.

Data sources: Medline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.

Study selection: Based 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 synthesis: Descriptive 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 measures: The outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.

Results: This 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 relevance: For 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Network Diagram
EDOF indicates extended depth of focus.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves for Visual Acuities
EDOF indicates extended depth of focus. aHigher rankings are associated with smaller outcome values.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Forest Plot for Uncorrected Visual Acuities Comparing Monofocal Intraocular Lenses (IOLs)
CrI indicates credible interval; EDOF, extended depth of focus.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.. Binocular Contrast Sensitivity
CPD indicates cycle per degree; CrI, credible interval; EDOF, extended depth of focus; IOL, intraocular pressure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Cao K, Friedman DS, Jin S, et al. . Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses for age-related cataract patients: a system review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Surv Ophthalmol. 2019;64(5):647-658. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.02.012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Vries NE, Webers CA, Touwslager WR, et al. . Dissatisfaction after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(5):859-865. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.11.032 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kanclerz P, Toto F, Grzybowski A, Alio JL. Extended depth-of-field intraocular lenses: an update. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2020;9(3):194-202. doi:10.1097/APO.0000000000000296 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Martínez Palmer A, Gómez Faiña P, España Albelda A, Comas Serrano M, Nahra Saad D, Castilla Céspedes M. Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Refract Surg. 2008;24(3):257-264. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20080301-07 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schallhorn JM, Pantanelli SM, Lin CC, et al. . Multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses for the treatment of presbyopia: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(10):1469-1482. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.03.013 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types