Leyland M D, Langan L, Goolfee F, Lee N, Bloom P A
Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust Uxbridge, Middx, UK.
Eye (Lond). 2002 Jul;16(4):481-90. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700077.
To evaluate the functional effect of bilateral implantation of two different multifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) compared with the standard monofocal IOL.
Sixty-nine patients were recruited into a prospective, double-masked, randomised, controlled trial at a single hospital in the United Kingdom. Sixty completed follow-up; 16 implanted with monofocal IOLs, 29 with AMO 'ARRAY' multifocal IOLs and 15 with Storz 'TRUEVISTA' bifocal IOLs. Phacoemulsification and IOL implantation was performed to a standardised technique in both eyes within a 2-month period. The main outcome measures were distance and near visual acuity, depth of field and validated assessment of subjective function (TyPE questionnaire).
naided distance acuity was good, and equivalent across the three groups. Corrected distance acuity was significantly lower in the bifocal group. Patients with multifocal and bifocal IOLs could read smaller absolute print size than those in the monofocal group (P = 0.05), but at a closer reading distance such that mean unaided near acuity was equal in the three groups. Corrected near acuity was significantly higher in the monofocal control group (P < 0.05). Depth of field was increased in multifocal (P = 0.06) and bifocal (P = 0.004) groups. Overall visual satisfaction was equal in the three groups, while near visual satisfaction was higher in the multifocal group than the monofocal (P = 0.04). Spectacle independence was not seen in the monofocal group, but was achieved in 28% of multifocal IOL patients and 33% of bifocal patients (P < 0.001). Adverse symptoms such as glare and haloes were significantly more bothersome with multifocal (not bifocal) IOLs than monofocals (P = 0.01).
Multifocal and bifocal IOLs improved unaided near vision performance, with around one in three patients becoming spectacle-independent. The main adverse effect was an increased incidence of subjective glare and haloes in the multifocal IOL group.
评估与标准单焦点人工晶状体(IOL)相比,双侧植入两种不同多焦点人工晶状体(IOL)的功能效果。
在英国一家医院进行了一项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验,招募了69名患者。60名患者完成随访;16名植入单焦点IOL,29名植入AMO“Array”多焦点IOL,15名植入Storz“TrueVista”双焦点IOL。在2个月内,对双眼采用标准化技术进行超声乳化和IOL植入。主要观察指标为远视力和近视力、景深以及主观功能的有效评估(TyPE问卷)。
裸眼远视力良好,三组相当。双焦点组的矫正远视力显著较低。多焦点和双焦点IOL患者能够阅读比单焦点组更小的绝对字号(P = 0.05),但阅读距离更近,使得三组的平均裸眼近视力相等。单焦点对照组的矫正近视力显著更高(P < 0.05)。多焦点组(P = 0.06)和双焦点组(P = 0.004)的景深增加。三组的总体视觉满意度相等,而多焦点组的近视觉满意度高于单焦点组(P = 0.04)。单焦点组未实现脱镜,而多焦点IOL患者中有28%、双焦点患者中有33%实现了脱镜(P < 0.001)。与单焦点IOL相比,多焦点(而非双焦点)IOL引起的眩光和光晕等不良症状明显更困扰患者(P = 0.01)。
多焦点和双焦点IOL改善了裸眼近视力表现,约三分之一的患者实现了脱镜。主要不良反应是多焦点IOL组主观眩光和光晕的发生率增加。