Skip to content

Intraocular lenses

TL;DR — The lens implant determines what the patient sees for the rest of their life, and the choice is a trade-off, not an upgrade path. Toric IOLs are the clearest win: high-quality evidence from 13 RCTs (707 vs 706 eyes) shows better uncorrected distance acuity (mean difference −0.07 logMAR, 95% CI −0.10 to −0.04) and greater spectacle independence (RR 0.51) versus non-toric implantation (Kessel 2016, PMID 26601819), with pooled mean absolute rotation of 2.36° (2.08–2.64) across 51 studies and 4,863 eyes (Li 2024, PMID 38768060). Presbyopia-correcting optics buy near and intermediate vision at a cost that must be disclosed: in a 27-study, 2,605-patient Bayesian network meta-analysis, trifocal IOLs gave better uncorrected near acuity than monofocals (mean difference −0.32 logMAR, 95% CrI −0.46 to −0.19) and EDOF gave better intermediate acuity, with distance acuity comparable across all types (Cho 2022, PMID 36136323). Dysphotopsia is the standing cost: up to 67% of patients report positive dysphotopsia immediately after surgery, 2.2% persistently at one year, and negative dysphotopsia occurs in up to 26% early, persisting in 0.13–3% at one year (Pusnik 2022, PMID 36676002). Hydrophilic acrylic material carries higher risks of calcification and posterior capsule opacification and should be avoided when vitrectomy or endothelial keratoplasty is likely (Grzybowski 2022, PMID 34843687).

Optical classes

Class Principle What it buys What it costs
Monofocal Single focal point, aspheric or spherical Best contrast; predictable Spectacles for near (and intermediate)
Enhanced monofocal Modest continuous power change toward intermediate Some intermediate gain with monofocal-like quality Minimal near gain
Extended depth of focus (EDOF) Elongated focus (diffractive, refractive, small-aperture) Better uncorrected intermediate acuity than monofocal Less near gain than trifocal; photic phenomena
Bifocal / trifocal diffractive Splits light between two or three foci Best uncorrected near acuity and spectacle independence Light loss, halos, glare, contrast trade-off
Accommodating Axial shift or shape change Theoretical dynamic focus Heterogeneous, evolving technology
Toric (any of the above) Cylindrical correction on the IOL Corrects corneal astigmatism Requires accurate axis alignment and rotational stability

Approximately 100 multifocal IOL models were on the market by 2020, with wide variation in the range of vision targeted, pupil dependence, toric availability and optical platform (Rampat 2021, PMID 32980397). Reviews of presbyopia-correcting options make the standard summary: multifocal versus monofocal is associated with higher spectacle independence but higher rates and severity of symptomatic glare and reduced contrast sensitivity; among multifocals, diffractive designs tend to give better near vision and less symptomatic glare than refractive; EDOF versus diffractive multifocal gives equal or superior intermediate acuity with equal or lower glare rates (Sieburth 2019, PMID 30993062; Bellucci 2005, PMID 15650577).

Comparative evidence

Comparison Result Evidence base Source
Trifocal vs monofocal, uncorrected near MD −0.32 logMAR (95% CrI −0.46 to −0.19) Bayesian NMA, 27 RCTs, 2,605 patients Cho 2022, PMID 36136323
Old bifocal diffractive vs monofocal, uncorrected near MD −0.33 (−0.50 to −0.14) same PMID 36136323
EDOF vs monofocal, uncorrected intermediate Superior to monofocal; no difference vs trifocal diffractive in pairwise comparison same PMID 36136323
Any multifocal vs monofocal, uncorrected distance Comparable same PMID 36136323
Multifocal vs monofocal, contrast sensitivity, glare, halos No statistically significant differences detected same PMID 36136323
Trifocal vs monofocal, uncorrected near MD −0.35 (95% CI −0.48 to −0.22) NMA, 28 RCTs, 2,465 subjects Li 2024, PMID 38627651
Trifocal (PanOptix) and EDOF vs monofocal, uncorrected intermediate MD −0.13 (−0.21 to −0.06) and −0.13 (−0.17 to −0.09) same PMID 38627651
Spectacle independence ranking Trifocals highest (AT LISA tri 839MP SUCRA 97.5% distance, 80.7% intermediate; PanOptix 83.0% near) same PMID 38627651
Next-generation refractive EDOF vs enhanced monofocal Uncorrected intermediate 0.11 ± 0.08 vs 0.17 ± 0.11 logMAR (p = 0.006); near 0.25 ± 0.08 vs 0.31 ± 0.13 (p = 0.023); comparable distance, defocus curves and contrast; more photic phenomena with EDOF; near spectacle dependence 36% vs 80% 100 eyes, 50 patients, retrospective Kim 2025, PMID 40725660
Non-diffractive EDOF vs monofocal Uncorrected 66 cm 0.15 ± 0.10 vs 0.24 ± 0.15 logMAR; 40 cm 0.36 ± 0.14 vs 0.59 ± 0.17 60 vs 64 eyes, single site Kandavel 2023, PMID 37082300

The two large network meta-analyses agree on the shape of the result — trifocals win near, EDOF wins intermediate, distance is a wash — and disagree with the narrative reviews on contrast and photic phenomena, where the NMA found no statistically significant differences (PMID 36136323) while the review literature reports consistent contrast and glare costs (PMID 30993062). The likely explanation is measurement: trial contrast and dysphotopsia instruments are heterogeneous and under-powered relative to acuity endpoints. Editorials arguing that multifocals should become standard rest on the observation that daily activities like reading, sport and driving are poorly captured by best-corrected acuity in optimal lighting (Nemet 2023, PMID 36902768; Mencucci 2023, PMID 37457565).

Toric correction

Toric IOLs have the strongest evidence of any premium option. Thirteen RCTs randomising 707 eyes to toric and 706 to non-toric IOLs (225 with relaxing incisions) gave high-quality evidence of better uncorrected distance acuity (MD −0.07 logMAR, 95% CI −0.10 to −0.04) and greater spectacle independence (RR 0.51) (PMID 26601819). Performance depends on axis alignment, since rotation degrades astigmatic correction rapidly. Pooled across 51 studies and 4,863 eyes, mean absolute rotation was 2.36° (95% CI 2.08–2.64), with rotation dependent on lens material and haptic design (PMID 38768060). Longer follow-up is reassuring: across 19 studies (1,180 participants, 1,564 eyes, mean follow-up 29.9 ± 23.7 months), mean residual cylinder was −0.65 ± 0.39 D at 1 year and −0.80 ± 0.54 D at 2 years, mean rotation 2.27 ± 1.40° and 2.82 ± 1.73°, and only 12 IOLs (0.77%) required repositioning (Lam 2026, PMID 41730751). Toric IOLs are available in monofocal and multifocal platforms and can address both regular and, in selected cases, irregular astigmatism (Levy 2012, PMID 22257774). Predicting the residual cylinder is a separate problem: total corneal astigmatism predicts it better than anterior corneal astigmatism, and oblique components remain the least predictable (Kawahara 2022, PMID 36548932).

Dysphotopsia

Dysphotopsia is the commonest reason for dissatisfaction after technically uncomplicated surgery. Positive dysphotopsia — glare, streaks, starbursts, arcs, rings, haloes — is reported by up to 67% of patients immediately after surgery, persists to one year in 2.2%, and prompts surgical intervention in 0.07%. Negative dysphotopsia — a temporal arc-shaped shadow resembling a scotoma — occurs in up to 26% of patients early, persisting in 0.13–3% at one year, and has a distinct risk-factor profile (PMID 36676002; Hu 2018, PMID 29084005). Editorial and comment literature has debated management for over a decade (Mamalis 2010, PMID 20202530). Preoperative education, accurate diagnostics and appropriate IOL design and material are described as mandatory, with surgical options reserved for refractory cases (PMID 36676002).

Material and edge design

Property Effect Source
Hydrophilic acrylic Higher susceptibility to calcification, particularly after pars plana vitrectomy, DSAEK/DMEK or intraocular gas or air; higher PCO rate than hydrophobic Grzybowski 2022, PMID 34843687
Silicone optic (ESCRS trial) 3.13-fold higher endophthalmitis risk vs acrylic (95% CI 1.47–6.67) ESCRS Endophthalmitis Study Group 2007, PMID 17531690
Sharp posterior optic edge Nd:YAG capsulotomy RR 0.21 (0.11–0.41) at 3 years and 0.21 (0.10–0.45) at 5 years vs round edge Maedel 2021, PMID 34398965
Acrylic vs PMMA (older meta-analysis) Pooled risk difference in Nd:YAG rate −24% (95% CI −29% to −20%) Cheng 2007, PMID 17224119
Hydrogel vs acrylic / vs silicone +19% (8% to 30%) and +28% (10% to 46%) higher Nd:YAG rates PMID 17224119
Three-piece vs single-piece haptics Three-piece allows full 360° capsular bend around the optic edge; some single-piece designs may inhibit bend formation Dewey 2006, PMID 16436924
Biocompatibility Uveal biocompatibility (inflammatory foreign-body reaction) and capsular biocompatibility (lens epithelial cell behaviour) are separate axes Özyol 2017, PMID 28845327

An explanted opacified hydrophilic (Hydroview) IOL analysed by optical microscopy, X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and neutron activation more than two years after uneventful phacoemulsification in an eye with prior silicone-oil vitrectomy documents the calcification failure mode directly (Tripodi 2023, PMID 36866563). See posterior capsule opacification for the full PCO material and edge story.

Selection: who should not get premium optics

The recurring recommendation across this literature is that presbyopia-correcting optics are contraindicated or relatively contraindicated where retinal or optic-nerve disease will limit contrast or where visual field, fixation or preferred retinal locus is abnormal. Studies of contrast sensitivity in multifocal IOL patients with retinal disease conflict — some show no effect, others show worse performance in low illumination and at high spatial frequencies, though multifocals preserved contrast within the age-matched normal range (Grzybowski 2020, PMID 31955239). Multifocal optics are specifically discouraged in eyes with diabetic macular disease (Garcia-Cabrera 2026, PMID 41343850). Objective preoperative screening metrics have been proposed: cut-offs of age ≤62, ocular scatter index ≤1.25 and dysfunctional lens index ≥7.67 identified eyes expected to regain 0.8 logCS at distance after multifocal implantation, with the contrast-sensitivity defocus curve correlating better with objective grading than acuity did (Fernández 2023, PMID 36871115).

In children, premium optics are not established: a review of 17 studies (10 case series/interventional, 7 case reports) of multifocal or toric IOLs found favourable refractive outcomes but data insufficient to guide routine use (Asif 2023, PMID 36124376).

Economics

Fourteen economic evaluations across 12 countries (2001–2022, screened from 436 records) constitute the entire health-economic base for IOL choice; lifetime societal costs for multifocal IOLs ranged $5,780.79 to $15,944.76 with QALY gains of 0.16 to 0.71 (Wu 2025, PMID 40838946). The economic-evaluation literature for cataract surgery generally is heterogeneous in perspective and method (Ginel 2024, PMID 38347178). In most systems premium IOL costs are not covered by insurance (Chen 2025, PMID 40227658).

Late complications specific to the implant

Late in-the-bag IOL dislocation is rare but cumulative: in a population-based Olmsted County cohort of 14,471 cataract extractions in 9,577 residents, the cumulative risk of late posterior-chamber IOL dislocation was 0.1% at 5 and 10 years, 0.2% at 15, 0.7% at 20 and 1.7% at 25 years, with no difference between ECCE and phacoemulsification and pseudoexfoliation among the identified risk factors (Pueringer 2011, PMID 21683329). Novel fixation concepts are being explored for other reasons: capsulotomy-fixated (FEMTIS) IOLs showed lower Nd:YAG rates than in-the-bag lenses of identical material and optic design (3.1% vs 4.7% at 12 months) in a systematic review, suggesting closer capsule–optic contact (Beckers 2025, PMID 41096027). Newer IOL platforms continue to appear (Li 2019, PMID 30335627; Dick 2026, PMID 41248686).

Open questions

  • Do the contrast and photic costs of multifocal optics exist at the population level? Narrative reviews consistently report them (PMID 30993062; PMID 32980397), the largest network meta-analysis found no statistically significant differences (PMID 36136323), and the dysphotopsia literature reports high early and low persistent rates (PMID 36676002). The discordance is a measurement problem no trial has resolved with a validated symptom instrument as a primary endpoint.
  • Who benefits enough from presbyopia-correcting optics to accept the trade-off? Objective screening cut-offs have been proposed retrospectively (PMID 36871115) but never validated prospectively against patient-reported satisfaction.
  • Is toric benefit maintained beyond two years? Residual cylinder drifted from −0.65 D at 1 year to −0.80 D at 2 years with progressive rotation (PMID 41730751); no cohort in this evidence set reports 5- or 10-year astigmatic outcomes.
  • Should hydrophilic IOLs be withdrawn? The calcification and PCO case is made in a perspective article rather than a comparative trial (PMID 34843687), and no registry analysis quantifying explantation rates by material was identified in this session's searches.
  • What is the cost-effectiveness of premium optics in publicly funded systems? Fourteen studies in 12 countries with QALY gains spanning 0.16–0.71 and lifetime costs spanning nearly threefold (PMID 40838946) cannot support a reimbursement decision.

References

  1. Kessel L, Andresen J, Tendal B, et al. Toric Intraocular Lenses in the Correction of Astigmatism During Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:275-286. PMID 26601819
  2. Li ES, Vanderford EK, Xu Y, et al. Rotational stability of toric intraocular lenses by lens model and haptic design: systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2024;50:976-984. PMID 38768060
  3. Cho JY, Won YK, Park J, et al. Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. JAMA ophthalmology. 2022;140:1045-1053. PMID 36136323
  4. Pusnik A, Petrovski G, Lumi X. Dysphotopsias or Unwanted Visual Phenomena after Cataract Surgery. Life (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;13. PMID 36676002
  5. Grzybowski A, Zemaitiene R, Markeviciute A, et al. Should We Abandon Hydrophilic Intraocular Lenses?. American journal of ophthalmology. 2022;237:139-145. PMID 34843687
  6. Rampat R, Gatinel D. Multifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses in 2020. Ophthalmology. 2021;128:e164-e185. PMID 32980397
  7. Sieburth R, Chen M. Intraocular lens correction of presbyopia. Taiwan journal of ophthalmology. 2019;9:4-17. PMID 30993062
  8. Bellucci R. Multifocal intraocular lenses. Current opinion in ophthalmology. 2005;16:33-7. PMID 15650577
  9. Li J, Sun B, Zhang Y, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopia-correcting cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC ophthalmology. 2024;24:172. PMID 38627651
  10. Kim DY, Park ESY, Park H, et al. Comparative Outcomes of the Next-Generation Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens and Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery. Journal of clinical medicine. 2025;14. PMID 40725660
  11. Kandavel R, Colvard M, Dredge J, et al. Comparative Study Between Non-Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.). 2023;17:1161-1168. PMID 37082300
  12. Nemet A, Kanclerz P, Tuuminen R. Should Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Become a Standard in Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery?. Journal of clinical medicine. 2023;12. PMID 36902768
  13. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Ribeiro F. Editorial: Addressing the unmet needs of cataract patients: when quality of vision can make the difference in quality of life. Frontiers in medicine. 2023;10:1232243. PMID 37457565
  14. Lam CC, Tsang ZYA, Mok E, et al. Long-term astigmatism reduction with toric intraocular lenses: systematic review. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2026;52:616-622. PMID 41730751
  15. Levy P. [Toric IOL's]. Journal francais d'ophtalmologie. 2012;35:220-5. PMID 22257774
  16. Kawahara A. Predicting Residual Astigmatism in Cataract Surgery. Vision (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;6. PMID 36548932
  17. Hu J, Sella R, Afshari NA. Dysphotopsia: a multifaceted optic phenomenon. Current opinion in ophthalmology. 2018;29:61-68. PMID 29084005
  18. Mamalis N. Negative dysphotopsia following cataract surgery. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2010;36:371-2. PMID 20202530
  19. Endophthalmitis Study Group, European Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgeons. Prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis following cataract surgery: results of the ESCRS multicenter study and identification of risk factors. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2007;33:978-88. PMID 17531690
  20. Maedel S, Evans JR, Harrer-Seely A, et al. Intraocular lens optic edge design for the prevention of posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;8:CD012516. PMID 34398965
  21. Cheng JW, Wei RL, Cai JP, et al. Efficacy of different intraocular lens materials and optic edge designs in preventing posterior capsular opacification: a meta-analysis. American journal of ophthalmology. 2007;143:428-36. PMID 17224119
  22. Dewey S. Posterior capsule opacification. Current opinion in ophthalmology. 2006;17:45-53. PMID 16436924
  23. Özyol P, Özyol E, Karel F. Biocompatibility of Intraocular Lenses. Turkish journal of ophthalmology. 2017;47:221-225. PMID 28845327
  24. Tripodi S, Toro MD, Rejdak R, et al. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of an explanted opacified hydrophilic IOL after over two years from cataract surgery. European journal of ophthalmology. 2023;33:NP28-NP34. PMID 36866563
  25. Grzybowski A, Kanclerz P, Tuuminen R. Multifocal intraocular lenses and retinal diseases. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2020;258:805-813. PMID 31955239
  26. Garcia-Cabrera CR, Afshari NA. Cataract surgery in patients with diabetes mellitus: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations. Current opinion in ophthalmology. 2026;37:42-47. PMID 41343850
  27. Fernández J, Burguera N, Rocha-de-Lossada C, et al. Objective cataract grading methods and expected contrast sensitivity reestablishment with multifocal intraocular lenses. International ophthalmology. 2023;43:2825-2832. PMID 36871115
  28. Asif MI, Raj N, Kalra N, et al. Premium intraocular lenses in children. European journal of ophthalmology. 2023;33:1517-1528. PMID 36124376
  29. Wu Z, Cheng F, Xu J. Economic Evaluation of Intraocular Lens Targeting Cataract Patients: A Review and Future Directions. Translational vision science & technology. 2025;14:30. PMID 40838946
  30. Ginel J, Burguera N, Piñero D, et al. Economic evaluations in cataract surgery: a narrative review. Eye (London, England). 2024;38:1418-1424. PMID 38347178
  31. Chen SP, Woreta F, Chang DF. Cataracts: A Review. JAMA. 2025;333:2093-2103. PMID 40227658
  32. Pueringer SL, Hodge DO, Erie JC. Risk of late intraocular lens dislocation after cataract surgery, 1980-2009: a population-based study. American journal of ophthalmology. 2011;152:618-23. PMID 21683329
  33. Beckers D, Kretz F, Mehta J, et al. Analyzing the Relationship Between IOL Fixation and PCO Prevention. Journal of clinical medicine. 2025;14. PMID 41096027
  34. Li S, Jie Y. Cataract surgery and lens implantation. Current opinion in ophthalmology. 2019;30:39-43. PMID 30335627
  35. Dick HB. [Cataract surgery]. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde. 2026;243:239-253. PMID 41248686