Table 3.
Summary of Contrast Sensitivity and Halos
| Studya, year | EDOF IOLs | Control IOLs | CS: Under photopic conditions | CS: Under scotopic conditions | Halos |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pedrotti, 2016 [20] | Tecnis Symfony | Tecnis ZCB00 | NSD | NSD | NSD |
| AMO, 2017 [24] | Tecnis Symfony | Tecnis ZCB00 | Better in monofocal IOLs group | Better in monofocal IOLs group | More halos in EDOF IOLs group |
| Pilger, 2018 [21] | Tecnis Symfony | Tecnis ZCB00 | NR | Better in monofocal IOLs group | NSD |
| Cochener, 2018 [9] | Tecnis Symfony | PanOptix/ FineVison | NR | NR | NSD |
| Escandón-García, 2018 [18] | Tecnis Symfony | PanOptix/ FineVison | NSD | For 1.5 cpd, better in EDOF IOLs group | NR |
| Mencucci, 2018 [10] | Tecnis Symfony | PanOptix/AT LISA tri 839MP | Better in EDOF IOLs group | Better in EDOF IOLs group | NSD |
| Monaco, 2017 [19] | Tecnis Symfony | PanOptix/SN60WF | NR | NR |
EDOF verses trifocus: NSD; Both were worse than monofocal IOL |
| Ruiz-Mesa, 2017 [22] | Tecnis Symfony | FineVison | NSD | NSD | NSD |
| Ruiz-Mesa, 2018 [23] | Tecnis Symfony | PanOptix | NSD | NSD | NSD |
AMO Abbott Medical Optics, EDOF extended depth of focus, CS contrast sensitivity, IOLs intraocular lenses, cpd cycles per degree, NSD no significant difference, NR not report
aFirst author or sponsor