April 2009
Volume 50, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2009
Functional Assessment of Accommodative Intraocular Lenses Compared to Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. Takakura
    Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire
  • P. Iyer
    The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  • J. R. Adams
    Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire
  • S. M. Pepin
    Ophthalmology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A. Takakura, None; P. Iyer, None; J.R. Adams, None; S.M. Pepin, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2009, Vol.50, 5566. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A. Takakura, P. Iyer, J. R. Adams, S. M. Pepin; Functional Assessment of Accommodative Intraocular Lenses Compared to Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009;50(13):5566.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To assess the effects of accommodating IOLs for restoring accommodation in cataract surgery compared to monofocal IOLs.

Methods: : Search Strategy:We searched MEDLINE (Jan 1950-Oct 2008), the Cochrane Library (2008, Issue 3), and ClinicalTrials.gov (Oct 2008) using no limits; reviewed reference lists; and contacted experts in the field.Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled studies comparing accommodative IOLs versus monofocal IOLs in cataract surgery patients.Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted study investigators for missing information. Due to variations in measurement scales, we pooled the efficacy outcomes distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) and pilocarpine-induced IOL shift as standardized mean differences (SMD, 95% confidence interval), using random effects models. Some of the secondary outcomes and adverse effects such as posterior capsular opacification were summarized qualitatively.

Results: : Twelve RCTs involving 727 eyes were included in the meta-analysis. Based on ten trials involving 545 eyes, accommodating IOLs improved DCNVA more than monofocal IOLs [SMD -1.36 (-2.32, -0.41)], however the substantial heterogeneity across studies (I2=94%) could not be explained by any characteristic of the study population or methodology. Pooling the six homogeneous trials (I2 =45%) involving 216 eyes, we found no significant difference in DCNVA [SMD -0.07 (-0.45, 0.31)]. Based on four studies involving 182 eyes that evaluated pilocarpine-induced IOL shift, accommodative IOLs were associated with significantly more anterior lens shift compared to monofocal IOLs [SMD -1.44 (-1.84, -1.04)]. Four of the five studies that mentioned posterior capsular opacification reported increased rates in the accommodating IOL group several months post-operatively.

Conclusions: : This is the first quantitative analysis comparing accommodative IOLs to monofocal IOLs using both subjective and objective measures of accommodation. While incorporating all available data suggests statistically significant improvements in both measures, the unexplained heterogeneity of the DCNVA findings and unclear clinical relevance of the anterior shift findings greatly limit interpretation. In light of the lack of subjective benefit from 6 homogeneous trials, further rigorous RCTs with standardized methodology and adequate adverse effects monitoring are needed to clarify the trade-offs.

Keywords: cataract • intraocular lens • accomodation 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.