Leyland M, Zinicola E
Royal Berkshire Hospital NHS Trust, London Road, Reading, UK, RG1 5AN.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(3):CD003169. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003169.
Good unaided distance visual acuity is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens implantation. Near vision however still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) intraocular lenses are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal intraocular lenses.
The objective of this review is to assess the effects of multifocal intraocular lenses, including effects on visual acuity, subjective visual satisfaction, spectacle dependence, glare and contrast sensitivity, compared to standard monofocal lenses.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which includes the Eyes and Vision Group trials register) on the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2002) and EMBASE (1980 to February 2002). The reference lists of relevant articles were searched. Investigators of included studies and manufacturers of multifocal intraocular lenses were contacted for information about additional published and unpublished studies.
All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal intraocular lens of any type with a monofocal intraocular lens as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included.
Data were collected and trial quality assessed. Where possible, statistical summary measures were calculated, otherwise data was tabulated.
Eight trials were identified. There was significant variability between the trials in which outcomes were reported. Unaided distance acuity was similar in multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (Peto Odds Ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.96). There was no statistical difference between multifocal IOLs and monofocals with respect to the proportion of participants achieving 6/6 best corrected visual acuity (Peto Odds Ratio 1.43, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.09). Unaided near vision was improved with the multifocal intraocular lenses. Total freedom from use of glasses was achieved more frequently with multifocal than monofocal IOLs (OR for spectacle dependence 0.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.22). Adverse effects included reduced contrast sensitivity and the subjective experience of haloes around lights.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal intraocular lenses are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal intraocular lenses. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal intraocular lenses will vary between patients, with motivation to achieve spectacle independence likely to be the deciding factor.
如今,白内障手术及人工晶状体植入术后获得良好的裸眼远视力已成为现实期望。然而,近视力仍需要额外的屈光力,通常以佩戴阅读眼镜的形式来实现。市面上有多种光学(多焦点)人工晶状体,宣称能在不同距离提供良好视力。目前尚不清楚这种益处是否超过了多焦点人工晶状体固有的光学缺陷。
本综述的目的是评估多焦点人工晶状体的效果,包括与标准单焦点晶状体相比,其对视力、主观视觉满意度、眼镜依赖程度、眩光及对比敏感度的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane图书馆(2002年第1期)中的Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL,其中包括眼与视觉组试验注册库)、MEDLINE(1966年至2002年3月)以及EMBASE(1980年至2002年2月)。我们还检索了相关文章的参考文献列表。我们联系了纳入研究的研究者以及多焦点人工晶状体的制造商,以获取有关其他已发表和未发表研究的信息。
纳入所有将任何类型的多焦点人工晶状体与单焦点人工晶状体作为对照进行比较的随机对照试验。单侧和双侧植入试验均包括在内。
收集数据并评估试验质量。在可能的情况下,计算统计汇总指标,否则将数据列表展示。
共识别出八项试验。各试验在报告的结果方面存在显著差异。多焦点和单焦点人工晶状体的裸眼远视力相似(Peto比值比(OR)为1.21,95%置信区间(CI)为0.75至1.96)。在达到6/6最佳矫正视力的参与者比例方面,多焦点人工晶状体与单焦点人工晶状体之间无统计学差异(Peto比值比为1.43,95%CI为0.99至2.09)。多焦点人工晶状体可改善裸眼近视力。与单焦点人工晶状体相比,多焦点人工晶状体使患者更频繁地完全摆脱眼镜使用(眼镜依赖的OR为0.15,95%CI为0.11至0.22)。不良反应包括对比敏感度降低以及主观上感觉灯光周围有光晕。
与单焦点人工晶状体相比,多焦点人工晶状体在改善近视力方面有效。这种改善是否超过多焦点人工晶状体的不良反应,在不同患者之间会有所不同,实现摆脱眼镜依赖的意愿可能是决定因素。