Positioning of enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses between conventional monofocal and extended depth of focus lenses: a scoping review.
Cataract
Enhanced
Intermediate
Intraocular lens
Monofocal
Plus
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2023
14 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
12
12
2022
accepted:
06
03
2023
entrez:
15
3
2023
pubmed:
16
3
2023
medline:
17
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
New intraocular lenses (IOLs) have emerged since the originally coined monofocal and multifocal IOLs. The extended depth of focus (EDoF) and enhanced monofocal IOLs (mono-EDoF) that have appeared in the last decade have caused some confusion in their classification. The aim of this review was to summarize the outcomes provided by mono-EDOF IOLs and to determine which of the endpoints, described by the American National Standard (ANSI) for EDoF IOLs, are fulfilled. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and data extraction. The search strategy was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, but not by language. The results are presented as a narrative summary accompanied by tables, in alignment with the objectives of this scoping review. Compliance with the endpoints for clinical outcomes described in the American National Standard Z80.35-2018 (ANSI) for EDoF lenses was checked and additional endpoints were defined. Two systematic reviews, 13 laboratory, 21 clinical, and two mixed studies were included. Tecnis Eyhance was the mono-EDOF with the highest volume of evidence to date. Although laboratory studies included other IOLs, clinical evidence for them is still scarce, with only one study of IsoPure compared to a standard monofocal IOL. Evidence in comparison to EDoF lenses is also scarce, even for Tecnis Eyhance, with only three studies including this lens in comparison to an EDoF lens. After evaluation of the ANSI criteria, agreement was found in the failure for the increase in depth of field equal to or greater than 0.5 D for a visual acuity (VA) level of 0.2 logMAR and none of the studies supported that the median monocular VA at intermediate distance was at least 0.2 logMAR. Additional clinical evidence is required for other mono-EDOF IOLs beyond Tecnis Eyhance. Until the arrival of a standard classification, mono-EDOF should be better still classified as monofocal because the ANSI standards were not fully met.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
New intraocular lenses (IOLs) have emerged since the originally coined monofocal and multifocal IOLs. The extended depth of focus (EDoF) and enhanced monofocal IOLs (mono-EDoF) that have appeared in the last decade have caused some confusion in their classification. The aim of this review was to summarize the outcomes provided by mono-EDOF IOLs and to determine which of the endpoints, described by the American National Standard (ANSI) for EDoF IOLs, are fulfilled.
METHODS
METHODS
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and data extraction. The search strategy was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, but not by language. The results are presented as a narrative summary accompanied by tables, in alignment with the objectives of this scoping review. Compliance with the endpoints for clinical outcomes described in the American National Standard Z80.35-2018 (ANSI) for EDoF lenses was checked and additional endpoints were defined.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Two systematic reviews, 13 laboratory, 21 clinical, and two mixed studies were included. Tecnis Eyhance was the mono-EDOF with the highest volume of evidence to date. Although laboratory studies included other IOLs, clinical evidence for them is still scarce, with only one study of IsoPure compared to a standard monofocal IOL. Evidence in comparison to EDoF lenses is also scarce, even for Tecnis Eyhance, with only three studies including this lens in comparison to an EDoF lens. After evaluation of the ANSI criteria, agreement was found in the failure for the increase in depth of field equal to or greater than 0.5 D for a visual acuity (VA) level of 0.2 logMAR and none of the studies supported that the median monocular VA at intermediate distance was at least 0.2 logMAR.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Additional clinical evidence is required for other mono-EDOF IOLs beyond Tecnis Eyhance. Until the arrival of a standard classification, mono-EDOF should be better still classified as monofocal because the ANSI standards were not fully met.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36918799
doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-02844-1
pii: 10.1186/s12886-023-02844-1
pmc: PMC10015679
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
101Subventions
Organisme : Johnson and Johnson
ID : 1316
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Refract Surg. 2022 Sep;38(9):572-579
pubmed: 36098391
J Refract Surg. 2020 Sep 1;36(9):625-632
pubmed: 32901831
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022 Sep 19;:11206721221127075
pubmed: 36124373
J Refract Surg. 2021 Sep;37(9):601-608
pubmed: 34506236
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec;68(12):3025-3029
pubmed: 33229691
Korean J Ophthalmol. 2021 Apr;35(2):112-119
pubmed: 33845556
J Refract Surg. 2022 Aug;38(8):497-501
pubmed: 35947002
Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2021 Oct 1;10(6):542-547
pubmed: 34608065
J Refract Surg. 2022 Jan;38(1):10-20
pubmed: 35020542
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022 Jan;32(1):229-234
pubmed: 33579171
J Refract Surg. 2022 Aug;38(8):538-546
pubmed: 35947003
Biomed Opt Express. 2016 Apr 15;7(5):1877-88
pubmed: 27231628
J Ophthalmol. 2022 Jul 7;2022:4119698
pubmed: 35847352
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022 Feb;260(2):609-620
pubmed: 34370067
Int Ophthalmol. 2021 Jan;41(1):273-282
pubmed: 32893321
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021 Feb 1;47(2):184-191
pubmed: 32932369
J Refract Surg. 2021 Sep;37(9):595-600
pubmed: 34506243
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol (Engl Ed). 2020 Nov;95(11):523-527
pubmed: 32660762
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022 Oct 22;:11206721221134171
pubmed: 36274639
Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2019 Jul-Aug;8(4):335-349
pubmed: 31403494
Int Ophthalmol. 2021 Feb;41(2):491-498
pubmed: 33392939
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Jan 1;48(1):61-66
pubmed: 34117177
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2022 Aug;239(8):996-1004
pubmed: 35426109
J Refract Surg. 2020 Aug 1;36(8):520-527
pubmed: 32785725
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020 Mar;46(3):378-387
pubmed: 32050218
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2023 Jan;33(1):262-268
pubmed: 36062601
Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2020 May-Jun;9(3):194-202
pubmed: 32511121
J Clin Med. 2022 Feb 24;11(5):
pubmed: 35268303
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020 Jun;46(6):902-906
pubmed: 32304487
Ophthalmol Ther. 2022 Dec;11(6):2045-2056
pubmed: 36040648
Clin Ophthalmol. 2022 May 27;16:1641-1652
pubmed: 35656389
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Jan 1;48(1):67-74
pubmed: 34054077
BMC Ophthalmol. 2022 Sep 3;22(1):356
pubmed: 36057556
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022 Aug;70(8):2867-2871
pubmed: 35918933
Ophthalmol Ther. 2021 Dec;10(4):1093-1104
pubmed: 34689301
J Refract Surg. 2022 Nov;38(11):688-697
pubmed: 36367260
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2023 Jan;33(1):257-261
pubmed: 36112834
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022 Nov;260(11):3617-3625
pubmed: 35622140
Sci Rep. 2022 May 23;12(1):8654
pubmed: 35606534
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022 Sep 26;:11206721221128864
pubmed: 36163687
BMC Ophthalmol. 2021 Oct 16;21(1):365
pubmed: 34656091
Biomed Opt Express. 2018 Sep 17;9(10):4893-4906
pubmed: 30319910