Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction After Presbyopic Lens Exchange With a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens

Evidence database / Studies / chang-2012-presbyopic-lens-exchange-zma00

29enrolled patients*

45enrolled eyes*

1structured arms

180maximum standardized days follow-up

* Descriptive sum of reported arm counts. “≥” indicates that one or more arm counts were not reported; missing values are not treated as zero.

Study arm

Presbyopic lens exchange with ZMA00

RLETECNIS Multifocal ZMA00

Population

Patients: 29
Eyes: 45
Bilateral treatment: Not reported
Age range: Not reported
Sphere range: Not reported
Cylinder range: Not reported
Spherical equivalent: Not reported
Corneal thickness: Not reported

Eligibility definition

Inclusion
Eyes receiving refractive lens exchange with ZMA00 and having preoperative uncorrected or corrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better.

Exclusion
Not structured

Reported outcomes by follow-up

Outcome	Follow-up	Follow-up sample	Result	Reported fraction	Provenance
Postoperative halos symptoms	6 months	45 eyes	78.0%	denominator: 27 patients	VERIFIED Source · Abstract
Postoperative night glare symptoms	6 months	45 eyes	26.0%	denominator: 27 patients	VERIFIED Source · Abstract
Postoperative starbursts symptoms	6 months	45 eyes	48.0%	denominator: 27 patients	VERIFIED Source · Abstract

Complications

No structured complication observations are available for this arm. This means “not reported in this dataset,” not zero complications.

Study design

Nonrandomized, unmasked retrospective chart review of presbyopic lens exchange with the ZMA00 diffractive multifocal intraocular lens.

Country: Hong Kong
Publication-reported places: Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong
Multicenter: No
Prospective: No
Randomized: No
Source type: RETROSPECTIVE
Regulator: Not reported

Place metadata may refer to a treatment site, institution or author affiliation. Confirm its role in the linked publication.

Limitations and notes

The visual-symptom questionnaire was completed by 27 of the 29 enrolled patients. Halo, night-glare, and starburst percentages use that questionnaire population, not the eye count. No symptom numerators were inferred from rounded percentages.

Missing fields are not interpreted as negative findings. Arm counts may not be additive in all study designs.

Study evidence level
A simple, non-GRADE hierarchy based on design: randomized and large regulatory trials are high; prospective cohorts moderate; retrospective observational studies low. Manual review can override this label.