<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJOph</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Ophthalmology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2165-7408</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojoph.2022.124039</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJOph-121549</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Encouraging Visual Outcome of a New Accommodative Intraocular Lens: A Retrospective Long-Term Study with a Mean Follow-Up of 5.3 Years
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jacob</surname><given-names>Ritter</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Justus</surname><given-names>Petrick</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anna-Lena</surname><given-names>Kloberdanz</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Charlotte</surname><given-names>Rammler</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Violeta</surname><given-names>Doci</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Ophthalmology Office Dr. med. V. Doci, Hamburg, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Semmelweis University of Medicine, Asklepios Campus, Hamburg, Germany</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>22</day><month>09</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>416</fpage><lpage>429</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>8,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>29,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Purpose: To assess the visual outcome after implantation of the new Hydrophylic IOL type 41 B/G accommodating intraocular lens (AIOL). 
  Methods: The presented lens was implanted during cataract surgery. All patients were offered follow-ups, allowing two postoperative measurements to be performed at 3 months and between 2020 and 2021. The mean time between lens implantation and last follow-up was 5.3 years (min. 1 year, max. 10 years). Excluded were patients with age-related macular degeneration or amblyopia. Patients with a foreign lens implanted into the second eye were included in a separate control group. Corrected distance (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 5 m, and corrected near (CNVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm were assessed. Furthermore, the postoperative spherical equivalent (SE), the dependence on spectacles and the occurrence of optical phenomena were evaluated. 
  Results: The final study cohort consists of 65 patients with 119 implanted AIOLs. Significantly better visual results were obtained in both postoperative follow-ups compared with the preoperative results. The mean values of the last follow-up for the UNVA, CNVA, UDVA, and CDVA were 0.107 &#177; 0.10; 0.039 &#177; 0.08; 0.097 &#177; 0.11; and 0.040 &#177; 0.09 logMAR, respectively. Visual outcomes remained on a high level for up to 10 years and showed significantly better results compared to the control group. Postoperative SE was significantly improved. Nearly 70% of patients were no longer dependent on glasses. Furthermore, the occurrence of disturbing optical phenomena was denied by all patients. 
  Conclusion: The results of this AIOL are particularly promising, especially since gratifying visual results could still be measured 10 years after implantation.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Accommodative Intraocular Lens</kwd><kwd> Cataract Surgery</kwd><kwd> Monofocal Intraocular Lens</kwd><kwd> Visual Acuity</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>For many patients, vision loss is usually associated with a severe reduction in quality of life. Cataract is the leading cause of avoidable blindness worldwide [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref2">2</xref>]. Due to the high number of cases, cataract surgery is the most common and most frequently performed ophthalmologic surgery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref3">3</xref>] and can be considered one of the most frequently performed surgeries in Germany. This has resulted in the constant development and evolution of surgical methods, techniques and intraocular lenses (IOLs). In the early 2000s, new IOLs were developed to mimic the physiological accommodation of the eyes through different principles. The mechanism of these accommodative intraocular lenses (AIOLs) was often based on the principle of the so called “optic shift”, a (forward) movement of the lens to achieve a change in refractive power [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref4">4</xref>]. However, several studies have demonstrated that the optic shift principle allows only partial or no accommodation and does not improve near vision [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref6">6</xref>]. This could be a possible reason why AIOLs have become less important [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref7">7</xref>] and nowadays hardly any literature is published on this topic. Thereby AIOLs represent in theory at least the best and simplest solution for cataract treatment, stepless change of focal length, no loss of contrast and hardly any optical phenomena [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref8">8</xref>]. Meanwhile, several (new) technologies seem to be under development to finally present a functional AIOL [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref9">9</xref>].</p><p>The aim of this study is to report the visual outcome of a new AIOL whose design and effect are based on known principles. Furthermore, it should be shown that not all long-term results of AIOLs have to be disappointing. We intend to provide a new impulse for the development and restoration of physiological accommodation using AIOLs.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>In cataract surgeries, a novel AIOL from Morcher&#174;GmbH (models Hydrophylic IOL type 41 B or 41 G, as of 2015) was implanted more than 4000 times between 2010 and 2020. These surgeries were initially performed at Park-Klinik Manhagen (Gro&#223;hansdorf, Germany) and at AOB Augen&#228;rzte &amp; Augentagesklinik Ballindamm (Hamburg, Germany) from 2010 to 2015. Subsequently, the surgeries were performed in the Augenarztpraxis Violeta Doci, MD (Hamburg, Germany). All surgeries were performed by the same ophthalmologist. The operated patients were all offered a follow-up examination between 2020 and 2021 to check the long-term results of the lens. 77 patients with 139 eyes participated in these follow-up examinations. A retrospective, non-randomized analysis was conducted and data were anonymized before further analysis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref10">10</xref>]. 12 patients were excluded due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or with amblyopia. The postoperative visual acuity of these patients was not expected to be representative due to their disease. This resulted in a cohort of 65 patients with 119 implanted AIOLs. In 6 patients of this cohort a previous cataract surgery with implantation of a foreign monofocal IOL in a different institution took place. These patients now underwent a second cataract surgery with implantation of the AIOL presented here in the respective other eye. We subsequently included these patients in a separate control group to validate our results. All studies were performed with the approval of the local ethics committee and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Preoperative and Postoperative Assessment</title><p>Preoperatively, a complete ophthalmologic examination was performed. This included refractometry with the autorefractometer (NIDEK AR-1s) to quantify ametropias and astigmatisms (in diopters (D) and axial deviation in degrees, respectively), determination of intraocular pressure (tonometry), slit lamp examinations, determination of manifest refraction and fundoscopy. The corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was also determined monocularly with the help of visual charts projected by the Remote Chart Projector Tomey TCP-1000 LED under photopic conditions with 85 cd room illumination. So called logMAR charts were used at a distance of 5 m.</p><p>Postoperative follow-up examinations were performed 3 months (postOP 1) after lens implantation and between late 2020 and early 2021 (postOP 2). The mean time between cataract surgery and postOP 2 was 5.3 years (min. 1 year; max. 10 years). Postoperatively, the same examinations were performed as preoperatively, whereby the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was additionally determined. Uncorrected and corrected near visual acuity (UNVA and CNVA, respectively) were determined with the Oculus&#169; Close Reading Sample 2 at a distance of 40 cm. The number of the smallest line readable by the patient gave the corresponding near visual acuity, which was subsequently converted to logMAR.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Lens and Surgical Procedure</title><p>The implanted lenses are the monofocal lens models Hydrophylic IOL Type 41 B and 41 G from Morcher&#174;GmbH (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Both AIOLs have four broad-based T-haptics tilted 5˚ posteriorly. The diameter of the lens including the haptics comprises 10 mm, which spreads the capsular bag during implantation. The large contact surface of the haptics and the resulting capsular tension should reduce the risk of a decentered lens and ensure optimal power transfer from the capsular bag and ciliary body to the lens. The material thickness of the haptics was chosen with 0.3 to 0.5 mm in order to achieve an optimal balance between stability and sufficient flexibility for the forward movement of the lens during</p><p>accommodation (in the sense of the optic shift). The shape of the optics is biconvex and they measure 5.0 - 5.5 mm (model 41 B) or 5.5 - 6.0 mm (model 41 G) in diameter. The lenses have a standard refractive power (diopter power) of 22 D and are available from 10 - 30 D. Manufactured from foldable hydrophilic acrylic with 28% water content. In contrast to model 41 B, model 41 G also has an integrated UV filter. Patients were able to decide independently which lens model they preferred to have implanted. For lens implantation, surgical access was routinely created using paracentesis. Viscoelasticum was then introduced into the anterior chamber of the eye. This was followed by capsulorhexis using cannula or forceps, mobilization of the lens by hydrodissection as well as dissection and removal of the lens by phacoemulsification. Residuals of the lens cortex were aspirated and the foldable AIOL was implanted into the capsular bag after reintroduction of viscoelasticum.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Statistical Analysis</title><p>GraphPad Prism (Macintosh Version 9.3.1 GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA) was used to perform the statistical analyses. We used a paired and unpaired two-tailed t test for comparison of two groups and ordinary one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test to compare more than two study groups. The level of significance was defined as p &lt; 0.05. Exact p-values are reported unless p &lt; 0.001. All data are presented as absolute values or as the mean &#177; standard deviation (&#177;SD).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>The lens reported here was implanted in 119 eyes of a total of 65 patients with a mean age of 73.5 &#177; 8.9 years. Patient demographics are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>1</xref>. No intraoperative complications occurred in any of the surgeries. The pre- and postoperative results are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>2</xref>. Preoperatively, a CDVA of 0.413 &#177; 0.17 logMAR was measured. At 3 months postoperatively (postOP 1), the mean UNVA, CNVA, UDVA, and CDVA were 0.086 &#177; 0.08; 0.010 &#177; 0.04; 0.064 &#177; 0.07; and 0.027 &#177; 0.06 logMAR, respectively. The mean values of the last follow-up between 2020-2021 (postOP 2) for the UNVA, CNVA, UDVA, and CDVA were 0.107 &#177; 0.10; 0.039 &#177; 0.08; 0.097 &#177; 0.11; and 0.040 &#177; 0.09 logMAR, respectively. All cases showed significant improvement (p &lt; 0.001) between preoperative and postoperative visual acuity. We found no significant difference between the UNVA or CNVA and the UDVA or CDVA, neither within postOP 1 nor within postOP 2 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(a) and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(b)). However, comparing the visual outcomes between postOP 1 and postOP 2, there is a significant difference between the postOP 1 and 2 CNVA, as well as between the postOP 1 and 2 UDVA (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(c) and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(d)). In postOP 1, 75% of patients achieved an UNVA of at least 0.1 logMAR and approximately 83% achieved an UDVA of at least 0.1 logMAR. In postOP 2, approximately 71% of patients achieved an UNVA of at least 0.1 logMAR and approximately 73% achieved an UDVA of at least 0.1 logMAR. Mean UNVA and mean UDVA decreased to an average of 0.1 logMAR within the first two postoperative years but then remained at this level for up to 10 years (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(a)). No difference in visual acuity between men and women could be found postoperatively. However, a significant difference in visual</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>1</xref></label><caption><title> Demographic overview of the patients including mean time since surgery</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sex, n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24 (37)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (63)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age (yr)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >mean &#177; SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.5 &#177; 8.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eyes, n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >right</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59 (49.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >left</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60 (50.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >119 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time since surgery</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >mean (yr)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>yr = years.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2"><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>2</xref></label><caption><title> Visual acuity preoperative and postoperative after 3 months (postOP 1) and in follow-up from 2020-2021 (postOP 2)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >preOP</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >postOP 1</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >postOP 2</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >UNVA (logMAR)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >mean (&#177;SD)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.086 (&#177;0.08)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.107 (&#177;0.10)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CNVA (logMAR)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >mean (&#177;SD)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.010 (&#177;0.04)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.039 (&#177;0.08)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >UDVA (logMAR)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >mean (&#177;SD)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.064 (&#177;0.07)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.097 (&#177;0.11)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CDVA (logMAR)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >mean (&#177;SD)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.413 (&#177;0.17)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.027 (&#177;0.06)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.040 (&#177;0.09)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gauge (Dpt.)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >mean (&#177;SD)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.35 (&#177;3.41)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.28 (&#177;0.69)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.13 (&#177;0.72)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Astigmatism (Dpt.)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >mean (&#177;SD)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.20 (&#177;1.36)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.04 (&#177;0.83)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.14 (&#177;0.90)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity; CNVA = corrected near visual acuity; UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity.</p><p>outcomes was found in relation to patient age at last follow-up. Younger patients (mean age of 70 years) showed better CNVA and CDVA than older patients (mean age of 75 years).</p><p>To validate our findings, we compared the monocular postOP 2 results of 6 patients (3 right and 3 left eyes with AIOL) with the visual acuity of the respective other pseudophagic eye in which a foreign monofocal IOL had been implanted previously. It was possible to determine the implantation date of the foreign lens, which was on average 7.8 years before the postOP 2 controls. In comparison, the mean time between AIOL implantation and postOP 2 was 5 years. Statistical analysis confirmed a significantly better CNVA, UDVA and CDVA (p &lt; 0.05) of the AIOL eyes. We found no significant difference between the UNVA of the two groups.</p><p>Upon verbal questioning during the postOP 2 follow-up, almost 70% of the patients answered that they were not dependent on spectacles since lens implantation, neither for near vision, nor for driving, computer work, or distance vision. In the remaining 30% who depended on glasses for daily life, we found significantly lower UNVA and UDVA at both postoperative controls. Furthermore, the occurrence of disturbing optical phenomena (e.g. halo or glare) was questioned and denied by all patients.</p><p>The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was significantly improved compared to the preoperative SE. Thus, a high refractive accuracy is demonstrated with approximately 75% of patients from postOP 1 and approximately 77% of patients from postOP 2 within &#177;1 D of postoperative refractive error (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(b)). We could not find any evidence of deterioration of astigmatism. Due to posterior capsule opacification, a Nd: YAG capsulotomy was performed in 84% of the patients by the time of the last follow-up. In all cases, this procedure proved to be successful and there were no further complications or treatment interventions. No further evidence was found to indicate complications from cataract surgery.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>We report in this study the (long-term) results after implantation of a new AIOL in 119 eyes. Postoperatively, two follow-up examinations were performed on each patient (postOP 1 and 2), in which notably good results were obtained. On average, 5.3 years after lens implantation, the mean CNVA was 0.039 &#177; 0.08 logMAR and the mean CDVA was 0.040 &#177; 0.09 logMAR. To ensure accommodation by the lens, its structure is based on the principle of the so-called “optic shift”. Therefore, the haptics of the lens have a 5˚ posterior angulation. The literature reports that a lens movement of 1 mm equals a change in refractive power of about 2 D [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref4">4</xref>] and further that AIOLs can effectively transfer the force of the ciliary body to the lens [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref11">11</xref>]. However, the eye is affected by age-related degeneration processes, therefore the power transmission to the lens decreases with time [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref12">12</xref>]. We suspect that these age-related degenerative processes cause a decrease in visual acuity within the first two postoperative years. To the best of our knowledge it is unique in the literature so far, that visual loss with an AIOL stagnated two years postoperatively and settled at a mean visual acuity of 0.1 logMAR. Several studies demonstrated that the optic shift principle allows only partial or no accommodation and does not improve near vision [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref6">6</xref>]. However, in our study UNVA showed significantly less variation over the maximum postoperative duration of 10 years than UDVA. Even though we found significantly worse CNVA and UDVA in the postOP 2 control, UNVA decreased below a visual acuity of 0.1 logMAR in just 4% of patients between postOP 1 and postOP 2. As further evidence of age-related degeneration processes, we demonstrated significantly worse postoperative visual acuity in older patients (mean age 75 years). Younger patients showed a better visual outcome, which was also confirmed in the literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref14">14</xref>]. It could be assumed that the lens implantation should not be performed too late to maximize the visual results. We also investigated the influence of gender on visual outcome, but could not find any significant differences.</p><p>There are reports in the literature that lens placement in the sulcus improves visual outcome [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref15">15</xref>], thus representing the better location for lens placement than the capsular bag [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref17">17</xref>]. However, this aspect is controversial [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref16">16</xref>], as sulcus placement may cause a potential outflow obstruction [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref18">18</xref>]. For this reason, no routinely implantation into the sulcus was performed in this study. Since the visual outcome of the lens is notably good, the theory of improved visual outcome with implantation into the sulcus should be critically considered.</p><p>For comparison with the (long-term) results of other AIOLs, some of those described as “most commonly used” by Zvorničanin et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref19">19</xref>] were used. This comparison is shown in Supplementary <xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>S1 and demonstrates that the presented lens was able to achieve the best visual results. Furthermore, we were able to demonstrate with our control group that the AIOL achieves better results than other conventional monofocal IOLs. We assume that the significant differences between the AIOL group and the foreign lens group would probably not change with a larger cohort, or with the exact same length of a control period. The rather unsatisfactory reports of other AIOLs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref4">4</xref>] are probably the reason why only few scientific articles on this topic have been published recently. In addition, patient satisfaction after implantation of AIOLs seems to be highly variable, which could be another reason for the neglect of AIOL studies in the literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref20">20</xref>]. The long-term results of AIOLs can be promising, so the overall goal should still be to fully establish physiologic accommodation in pseudophagic eyes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref21">21</xref>].</p><p>The majority of current literature refers to trifocal lenses, which are designed to provide sharp vision in all three optic planes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref22">22</xref>]. Especially the intermediate visual acuity becomes increasingly important due to the growing use of computers and tablets [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref23">23</xref>]. Despite the missing determination of the intermediate visual acuity, we assume similar good results due to the accommodative properties of the lens presented here. The literature also reports a particularly good distance visual acuity of the trifocal lenses, whereas the near visual acuity usually shows the worst results within the three optic planes. Thus, near visual acuity of greater than 0.1 logMAR [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref27">27</xref>] is frequently reported, in some cases even greater than 0.2 logMAR [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref29">29</xref>]. Hence, trifocal lenses only partially fulfill their actual purpose (i.e. sharp vision in all three optical planes) and achieve a visual outcome similar or worse than some of the AIOLs. In addition, however, optical phenomena (e.g. halo or glare) occur frequently with trifocal lenses. Fern&#225;ndez et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref28">28</xref>] reported disturbing optical phenomena in 32% of the cases, McNeely et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref26">26</xref>] in more than 40% and Brito et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref27">27</xref>] even in 50% of the cases. Although the literature reports the occurrence of optical phenomena with monofocal lenses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref30">30</xref>], they do not occur that often. The appearance of such optical phenomena negatively influences patient satisfaction [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref32">32</xref>]. In our cohort, all patients denied subjective perception of optical phenomena. Therefore, we assume that patient satisfaction should be better compared to trifocal lenses. In addition, dependence on spectacles may also reduce patient satisfaction [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref29">29</xref>]. Regardless of reports in the literature about insufficient spectacle independence of AIOLs, almost 70% of patients in our cohort were completely independent of spectacles at the time of postOP 2 follow-up. This fact should also have positively influenced patient satisfaction. Reportedly, at least 0.4 logMAR UNVA is needed to read a newspaper, with better UNVA allowing even smoother reading [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref33">33</xref>]. We found significantly worse UNVA and UDVA in patients who required glasses, which is also confirmed by Kim et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref34">34</xref>] who reported worse UNVA in spectacle-dependent patients within their study.</p><p>The aim of cataract surgery is to restore emmetropia, but after lens implantation refractive errors may still be present and influence the visual outcome [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref29">29</xref>]. In our cohort we demonstrated a high refractive accuracy with approximately 75% of patients (postOP 1) and 77% (postOP 2) within &#177;1 D of postoperative refractive error. In a few cases, dislocation of the lens haptics occurred over time, which may have induced astigmatism. Nevertheless, in these cases enough vision remained for daily life and therefore there was no indication for re-surgery. Patients with amblyopia were excluded from the study cohort, as no representative postoperative visual acuity was measurable here. However, their visual acuity and thus also their quality of life improved due to lens implantation. We expect to achieve even better visual outcomes as surgical methods are further adapted and improved. In this cohort 84% of patients received Nd: YAG capsulotomy due to PCO. A mean time to capsulotomy of 44 months has been reported in the literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref28">28</xref>]. Additionally, rates of capsulotomy in other studies (e.g. 60% or 70%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref28">28</xref>] are comparable to our rate.</p><p>The circumstance that the participation rate in the follow-up controls is rather low is limitation and strength at the same time. As the number of participants increases, the data become more representative. The reason for the low participation in the follow-up examinations could be a high patient satisfaction, as well as a sufficiently good visual performance, so that the follow-up examinations were not considered necessary by the patients. Furthermore our study is limited by a lack of evidence of the accommodative properties of the lens, therefore additional investigations should be performed.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In conclusion, this new accommodative intraocular lens (AIOL) achieved UNVA, CNVA, UDVA and CDVA of 0.107 &#177; 0.10; 0.039 &#177; 0.08; 0.097 &#177; 0.11 and 0.040 &#177; 0.09 logMAR after a mean of 5.3 years postoperatively. Thereby, the (long-term) results for accommodative intraocular lenses are particularly promising, especially since the positive visual results did not deteriorate further after the first two postoperative years. However, a precise proof of the (pseudo-) accommodative ability of this lens remains and is subject to further investigations.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Authors’ Contribution</title><p>All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Jacob Ritter, Justus Petrick, and Violeta Doci. Data analysis was performed by Jacob Ritter, Justus Petrick, Anna-Lena Kloberdanz and Charlotte Rammler. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jacob Ritter and Justus Petrick and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Funding</title><p>This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Ritter, J., Petrick, J., Kloberdanz, A.-L., Rammler, C. and Doci, V. (2022) Encouraging Visual Outcome of a New Accommodative Intraocular Lens: A Retrospective Long-Term Study with a Mean Follow-Up of 5.3 Years. Open Journal of Ophthalmology, 12, 416-429. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojoph.2022.124039</p></sec><sec id="s10"><title>Supplementary</title><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table">Table </xref>S1</label><caption><title> Outline of visual acuities at 3 months postoperative, from alternative accommodative intraocular lenses</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >UNVA</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CNVA</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >UDVA</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CDVA</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crystalens HD (Bausch Lomb) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref35">35</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42 (&#177;0.15)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07 (&#177;0.06)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26 (&#177;0.45)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04 (&#177;0.08)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 CU Lens (Human optics) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref36">36</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.55 (&#177;0.11)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47 (&#177;0.14)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02 (&#177;0.10)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00 (&#177;0.09)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tetraflex (Lenstec Inc.) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref37">37</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49 (&#177;0.16)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05 (&#177;0.05)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12 (&#177;0.15)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.01 (&#177;0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Synchrony (Abbott) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref38">38</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16 (&#177;0.19)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23 (&#177;0.28)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00 (&#177;0.04)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tek-Clear (Tekia, Inc.) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref37">37</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38 (&#177;0.17)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04 (&#177;0.05)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.30 (&#177;0.20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00 (&#177;0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >WIOL-CI (Medicem) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121549-ref39">39</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.27 (&#177;0.19)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10 (&#177;0.09)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05 (&#177;0.06)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity; CNVA = corrected near visual acuity; UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity. Reporting of visual acuity in logMAR (&#177;SD).</p></sec><sec id="s11"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.121549-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dua, H.S. and Singh, A.D. (2012) Highlights from This Issue. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 96, 1. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302804</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Flaxman, S.R., Bourne, R.R.A., Resnikoff, S., Ackland, P., Braithwaite, T., Cicinelli, M.V., et al. (2017) Global Causes of Blindness and Distance Vision Impairment 1990-2020: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 5, e1221-e1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30393-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martinez-Perez, C., Alvarez-Peregrina, C., Villa-Collar, C., Arance-Gil, A. and Sánchez-Tena, M.A. (2021) Citation Network Analysis of the Various Types of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses. Archivos de la Sociedad Espa&amp;#241;ola de Oftalmología (English Edition), 96, 527-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftale.2020.11.010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alio, J.L., Alio Del Barrio, J.L. and Vega-Estrada, A. (2017) Accommodative Intraocular Lenses: Where Are We and Where We Are Going. Eye and Vision (London), 4, Article No. 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-017-0077-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alio, J.L., Plaza-Puche, A.B., Montalban, R. and Ortega, P. (2012) Near Visual Outcomes with Single-Optic and Dual-Optic Accommodating Intraocular Lenses. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 38, 1568-1575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.05.027</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Beiko, G.H.H. (2013) Comparison of Visual Results with Accommodating Intraocular Lenses versus Mini-Monovision with a Monofocal Intraocular Lens. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 39, 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.08.059</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Menapace, R. (2017) 30 Jahre Entwicklung der Kataraktchirurgie—ein pers&amp;#246;nlicher Rückblick. Spektrum der Augenheilkunde, 31, 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00717-017-0365-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Klaproth, O.K., Titke, C., Baumeister, M. and Kohnen, T. (2011) Accommodative Intraocular Lenses—Principles of Clinical Evaluation and Current Results. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd, 228, 666-675. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1281673</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dick, H.B. and Gerste, R.D. (2020) Future Intraocular Lens Technologies. Ophthalmology, 128, e206-e213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.12.025</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Püschel, K. (2016) Lehre und Forschung an Verstorbenen. Rechtsmedizin, 26, 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-016-0087-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Heatley, C.J., Spalton, D.J., Hancox, J., Kumar, A. and Marshall, J. (2005) Fellow Eye Comparison between the 1CU Accommodative Intraocular Lens and the AcrySof MA30 Monofocal Intraocular Lens. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 140, 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2005.02.057</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Marchini, G., Mora, P., Pedrotti, E., Manzotti, F., Aldigeri, R. and Gandolfi, S.A. (2007) Functional Assessment of Two Different Accommodative Intraocular Lenses Compared with a Monofocal Intraocular Lens. Ophthalmology, 114, 2038-2043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.12.034</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alio, J.L., Ben-nun, J., Rodriguez-Prats, J.L. and Plaza, A.B. (2009) Visual and Accommodative Outcomes 1 Year after Implantation of an Accommodating Intraocular Lens Based on a New Concept. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 35, 1671-1678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.04.043</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Auffarth, G.U., Martin, M., Fuchs, H.A., Rabsilber, T.M., Becker, K.A. and Schmack, I. (2002) Validity of Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements for the Evaluation of Accommodation after Implantation of an Accommodative Humanoptics 1CU Intraocular Lens. Ophthalmologe, 99, 815-819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-002-0718-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pallikaris, I.G., Karavitaki, A.E., Kymionis, G.D., Kontadakis, G.A., Panagopoulou, S.I. and Kounis, G.A. (2012) Unilateral Sulcus Implantation of the Crystalens HD. Journal of Refractive Surgery, 28, 299-301. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20120127-01</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alió, J.L. and Ben-Nun, J. (2015) Study of the Force Dynamics at the Capsular Interface Related to Ciliary Body Stimulation in a Primate Model. Journal of Refractive Surgery, 31, 124-128. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20150122-08</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alio, J.L., Simonov, A., Plaza-Puche, A.B., Angelov, A., Angelov, Y., van Lawick, W., et al. (2016) Visual Outcomes and Accommodative Response of the Lumina Accommodative Intraocular Lens. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 164, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.01.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schulze, S., Bertelmann, T. and Sekundo, W. (2014) Implantation of Intraocular Lenses in the Ciliary Sulcus. Ophthalmologe, 111, 305-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-013-2855-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zvornicanin, J. and Zvornicanin, E. (2018) Premium Intraocular Lenses: The Past, Present and Future. Journal of Current Ophthalmology, 30, 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2018.04.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tomas-Juan, J. and Murueta-Goyena Larranaga, A. (2015) Axial Movement of the Dual-Optic Accommodating Intraocular Lens for the Correction of the Presbyopia: Optical Performance and Clinical Outcomes. Journal of Optometry, 8, 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2014.06.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Glasser, A., Hilmantel, G., Calogero, D., MacRae, S., Masket, S., Stark, W., et al. (2017) Special Report: American Academy of Ophthalmology Task Force Recommendations for Test Methods to Assess Accommodation Produced by Intraocular Lenses. Ophthalmology, 124, 134-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.029</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ribeiro, F.J. and Ferreira, T.B. (2020) Comparison of Visual and Refractive Outcomes of 2 Trifocal Intraocular Lenses. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 46, 694-699. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000118</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Song, X., Liu, X., Wang W, Zhu, Y., Qin, Z., Lyu, D., et al. (2020) Visual Outcome and Optical Quality after Implantation of Zonal Refractive Multifocal and Extended-Range-of-Vision IOLs: A Prospective Comparison. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 46, 540-548. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000088</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bozkurt Gencer, M., Basmak H, Yasar, E. and Onal, O. (2021) Comparison of Trifocal Toric and Bifocal Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation in Patients with Cataract and High Corneal Astigmatism. International Journal of Ophthalmology, 14, 1876-1881. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2021.12.10</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ganes, S., Brar, S., Rp, N. and Rathod, D. (2021) Clinical Outcomes, Contrast Sensitivity, Reading Performance and Patient Satisfaction Following Bilateral Implantation of AT LARA 829MP EDoF IOLs. Clinical Ophthalmology, 15, 4247-4257. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S331860</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">McNeely, R.N., Moutari, S., Stewart, S. and Moore, J.E. (2021) Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction 1 and 12 Months after Combined Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses. International Ophthalmology, 41, 3985-3998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01970-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brito, P., Salgado-Borges, J., Neves, H., Gonzalez-Meijome, J. and Monteiro, M. (2015) Light-Distortion Analysis as a Possible Indicator of Visual Quality after Refractive Lens Exchange with Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 41, 613-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.07.033</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fernández, J., Rodríguez-Vallejo, M., Martínez, J., Burguera, N. and Pi&amp;#241;ero, D.P. (2021) Long-Term Efficacy, Visual Performance and Patient Reported Outcomes with a Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Six-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10, Article No. 2009. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10092009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Semiz, F., Lokaj, A.S., Caliskan, G., Verlato, G., Musa, N.H., Semiz, C.E., et al. (2021) Perception of Trifocal IOL Performance in Young Adults with High Astigmatism and Hyperopia and Its Improvement Using Small Incision Lenticule Extraction. Acta Informatica Medica, 29, 118-124. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2021.29.118-124</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alió, J.L., Kaymak, H., Breyer, D., Cochener, B. and Plaza-Puche, A.B. (2018) Quality of Life Related Variables Measured for Three Multifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses: A Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial. Clinical &amp; Experimental Ophthalmology, 46, 380-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13084</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">de Vries, N.E., Webers, C.A., Touwslager, W.R., Bauer, N.J., de Brabander, J., Berendschot, T.T., et al. (2011) Dissatisfaction after Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 37, 859-865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.11.032</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Woodward, M.A., Randleman, J.B. and Stulting, R.D. (2009) Dissatisfaction after Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 35, 992-997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.031</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wolffsohn, J.S. and Davies, L.N. (2019) Presbyopia: Effectiveness of Correction Strategies. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, 68, 124-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.09.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kim, J.W., Eom, Y., Yoon, E.G., Song, J.S., Jeong, J.W., Park, S.K., et al. (2021) Increased near Vision Spectacle Dependence of Patients with Preoperative Myopia after Mix-and-Match Implantation of Trifocal EDOF and Trifocal IOLs. Journal of Refractive Surgery, 37, 746-753. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20210802-02</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alió, J.L., Plaza-Puche, A.B., Montalban, R. and Javaloy, J. (2012) Visual Outcomes with a Single-Optic Accommodating Intraocular Lens and a Low-Addition-Power Rotational Asymmetric Multifocal Intraocular Lens. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 38, 978-985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.12.033</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Harman, F.E., Maling, S., Kampougeris, G., Langan, L., Khan, I., Lee, N., et al. (2008) Comparing the 1CU Accommodative, Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses: A Randomized Trial. Ophthalmology, 115, 993-1001.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.08.042</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tarak&amp;#231;ioglu, H.N., Onur, I.U. and &amp;#214;zkaya, A. (2020) A Comparative Study of Two Different Accommodative Intraocular Lenses: The Visual and Accommodative Amplitude Outcomes. European Archives of Medical Research, 36, 32-38. https://doi.org/10.4274/eamr.galenos.2019.42713</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bohórquez, V. and Alarcon, R. (2010) Long-Term Reading Performance in Patients with Bilateral Dual-Optic Accommodating Intraocular Lenses. Journal of Cataract &amp; Refractive Surgery, 36, 1880-1886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.06.061</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121549-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ang, R.E., Picache, G.C.S., Rivera, M.C.R., Lopez, L.R.L. and Cruz, E.M. (2020) A Comparative Evaluation of Visual, Refractive, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Three Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) Intraocular Lenses. Clinical Ophthalmology, 14, 2339-2351.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>