Qvision. Ophthalmology Department, VITHAS Almería Hospital, 04120, Almería, Spain.
Ophthalmology Department, VITHAS Málaga. 29016, Málaga, Spain.
BMC Ophthalmol. 2023 Mar 14;23(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-02844-1.
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.
自最初提出的单焦点和多焦点人工晶状体 (IOL) 以来,已经出现了新的眼内晶状体 (IOL)。在过去十年中出现的扩展景深 (EDoF) 和增强型单焦点 IOL (mono-EDoF) 引起了一些分类上的混淆。本综述的目的是总结单焦点 EDoF IOL 的结果,并确定哪些终点符合美国国家标准 (ANSI) 对 EDoF IOL 的描述。
检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 WEB OF SCIENCE 数据库。两名独立的审查员筛选了纳入和提取数据的研究。搜索策略仅限于 2020 年至 2022 年期间发表的研究,但不受语言限制。结果以符合本范围综述目的的叙述性摘要和表格呈现。检查了符合美国国家标准 Z80.35-2018 (ANSI) 中 EDoF 镜片临床结果描述的终点,并定义了其他终点。
纳入了两项系统评价、13 项实验室研究、21 项临床研究和两项混合研究。Tecnis Eyhance 是迄今为止证据量最高的单焦点 EDoF。尽管实验室研究包括其他 IOL,但它们的临床证据仍然很少,只有一项与标准单焦点 IOL 相比的 IsoPure 研究。与 EDoF 镜片相比的证据也很少,即使是 Tecnis Eyhance 也只有三项研究将其与 EDoF 镜片进行了比较。在评估 ANSI 标准后,发现对于视力 (VA) 水平为 0.2 logMAR 的 0.5 D 或更大的景深增加的标准,没有一项研究符合要求,并且没有一项研究支持中间距离的中位数单眼 VA 至少为 0.2 logMAR。
需要对 Tecnis Eyhance 以外的其他单焦点 EDoF IOL 进行更多的临床证据。在出现标准分类之前,由于未完全符合 ANSI 标准,单焦点 EDoF 仍应更好地归类为单焦点。