Author: Claude (AI), from PubMed abstracts · Reviewed by: Dr Mina Abdelmseih · Reviewed: 2026-11-15 · Review due: 2027-11-15

Educational content only. Not personalised medical advice. Clinical decisions remain the responsibility of the treating clinician.

Presbyopia-correcting and EDOF intraocular lenses

Presbyopia-correcting IOLs (bifocal and trifocal multifocal, extended depth of focus [EDOF] and accommodative lenses) aim to reduce spectacle dependence after cataract surgery [S1] [S8]. They improve near and intermediate vision compared with monofocal IOLs, but at the cost of more glare and haloes, so patient selection and counselling matter [S1] [S8] [S10].

Key points - Multifocal IOLs give distance vision similar to monofocal IOLs, better near vision and less spectacle dependence (RR 0.63), but more haloes (RR 3.58) and glare (RR 1.41) [S1]. - Trifocal and EDOF lenses give similar distance acuity; trifocals may give better near vision [S5]. Trifocals may improve intermediate vision compared with bifocals [S3]. - Compared with monovision, bilateral multifocal IOLs more often gave complete spectacle independence (RR 2.06) but more glare [S6]. - Even low residual astigmatism (0.5 D or more) significantly worsens distance and intermediate acuity after multifocal implantation [S4]. - Most evidence is low certainty, short term and from high-income settings; cost-effectiveness is context-dependent, with little data from low- and middle-income countries [S5] [S7] [S9].

Evidence last checked: 2026-10-17 (PubMed abstracts).

Red flags

• Patient expectations not explored: no study correlated patient-reported outcomes with expectations [S2].
• Troublesome haloes and glare after surgery: more common and more troublesome with multifocal IOLs [S1]; in one trial more multifocal patients had IOL exchange in the first year (6 vs 0 with monovision) [S1].
• Uncorrected astigmatism: degrades results [S4].
• Low-light and glare conditions: contrast sensitivity is worse with multifocal lenses [S2].

Recognise it: who may benefit

• Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor [S1].
• Patients reported high overall satisfaction regardless of the lens implanted [S2].
• Trials excluded people with ocular comorbidities such as glaucoma, diabetes, macular degeneration or myopic retinopathy, so results apply to otherwise healthy eyes [S7].

Confirm it: preoperative assessment

• Evaluate astigmatism accurately before and after surgery [S4].
• An international consensus (AAPPO, 2026; 47 statements, 46 with over 75% agreement) covers refractive vs diffractive designs, blur and haloes, dysphotopsia, neuroadaptation and factors affecting success [S10].

Manage it: choosing a lens

Before acting on this section, check the national and local guidelines, product information and regulatory approvals that apply where you practise. See the medical disclaimer.

Tier A (primary care / no specialist)

• Tier A / Tier B / Tier C tiers apply only partly: presbyopia-correcting IOLs are an elective, usually self-paid option. At Tier A, explain that standard monofocal surgery with reading spectacles remains the usual, lower-cost result [S1] [S9].

Tier B (general eye clinic)

• Offer a monofocal IOL as the default; discuss multifocal options only where the lenses, accurate biometry and astigmatism management are available [S1] [S4].
• Monovision is an alternative: it caused less glare than bilateral multifocal IOLs (RR 0.343) with similar distance and near acuity [S6], though studies did not always target enough myopia in the near eye [S2].

Tier C (specialist centre)

1. Multifocal vs monofocal. Cochrane (2016), 20 RCTs (3194 eyes): near vision better (RR for unaided near acuity worse than J3/J4 0.20, low certainty), distance similar (moderate certainty) [S1].
2. Trifocal vs bifocal. Cochrane (2023), 7 RCTs (331 participants): better uncorrected intermediate acuity at one year (MD -0.16 logMAR, low certainty), no difference in distance or near [S3].
3. Trifocal vs EDOF. Cochrane (2024), 5 studies (466 eyes): similar distance acuity; uncorrected near worse than J2 in 3% (trifocal) vs 30% (EDOF) in one study; glare and haloes with both [S5]. An overview of 8 systematic reviews agreed: multifocals better at near but with more glare and haloes; EDOF may offer spectacle independence without consistently matching near vision [S8].
4. Mix-and-match (trifocal in one eye, EDOF in the other): favourable 3-month binocular acuity at all distances in 5 studies (225 patients), with very low certainty [S11].
5. Accommodative IOLs: no extra dysphotopsia or contrast loss but only modest gains in spectacle independence [S2].
6. Refractive lens exchange without cataract: a Cochrane review (2025) of 4 RCTs found only low or very low certainty evidence over 3 to 6 months [S7].

Refer when

Pitfalls

• Promising complete spectacle independence; results vary and adverse visual phenomena are common [S1] [S5].
• Ignoring 0.5 D of residual astigmatism [S4].
• Implanting multifocal IOLs in eyes with comorbidities excluded from trials [S7].
• Assuming high-income cost-effectiveness data apply elsewhere [S9].

Evidence notes

• In [S3], two trials received manufacturer funding and an author of another received lecture payments from lens manufacturers.
• None of the 8 reviews in [S8] met all AMSTAR-2 items; none reported cost-effectiveness [S8], whereas [S9] found multifocal IOLs cost-effective in high-income health systems, with LMIC evidence missing.
• Trial follow-up was mostly 3 to 12 months; long-term outcomes are not covered [S3] [S5] [S7].
• Not covered by these sources: specific lens models' performance beyond those named, pupil and angle kappa criteria, retinal disease and multifocal IOLs, and management of neuroadaptation failure.

Related articles

• Biometry and IOL power calculation
• Pharmacological treatment of presbyopia
• Phacoemulsification: outcomes and techniques

References

See the numbered source list below. Each marker [S#] links to its PubMed and DOI record.