St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK.
Eye (Lond). 2010 Nov;24(11):1645-51. doi: 10.1038/eye.2010.104. Epub 2010 Aug 20.
To assess the difference in binocular visual fields (VFs) in patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery with either multifocal (MF; Tecnis ZM900, AMO) intraocular lenses (IOLs) or monofocal IOLs with powers adjusted to give monovision (MV; Akreos AO, Bausch&Lomb).
St George's & Moorfields Eye Hospital, London.
Prospective exploratory study. Binocular Esterman VFs (Humphrey Field Analyser II) were compared between 10 participants with MV and 16 participants with MF IOLs. The dominant eye in MV participants had 0 to -0.50DS and the non-dominant eye had between -1.0DS and -1.5DS. Best-corrected Snellen visual acuity for all 52 eyes was six out of nine or better. The main outcome measure was Esterman Efficiency Score. Incidence of suboptimal VF results (≥1 Unseen Locations--ULs) and mean testing times in the two groups were compared.
There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of suboptimal VF results in these two groups (P=0.662). Test durations in the two groups were not significantly different (P=0.650). However, 3/10 MV plots (33%) had markedly suboptimal right hemi-fields (distance-dominant eye) compared with 0/15 MF plots. Additionally, the MV group accounted for 79% of total ULs (20/29) and all these ULs were distributed in areas outside or bordering the true binocular VFs.
All included VFs met the UK driving standards criteria. The pattern of VF defects encountered in the MV group is of interest because the majority of ULs (13/20; 65%) corresponded to the monocular VFs of the distance-dominant eye.
评估接受多焦点（Tecnis ZM900，AMO）人工晶状体（IOL）或调整为单视（MV；Akreos AO，Bausch&Lomb）的单焦点 IOL 进行双眼白内障手术后的双眼视场（VF）差异。
伦敦圣乔治和摩尔菲尔德眼科医院。
前瞻性探索性研究。比较 10 名 MV 参与者和 16 名 MF IOL 参与者的双眼 Esterman VFs（Humphrey Field Analyzer II）。MV 参与者的优势眼为 0 至-0.50DS，非优势眼为-1.0DS 至-1.5DS。所有 52 只眼的最佳矫正视力均为六分之九或以上。主要观察指标为 Esterman 效率评分。比较两组中不佳 VF 结果（≥1 个未见到位置--ULs）的发生率和平均测试时间。
两组中不佳 VF 结果的发生率无统计学差异（P=0.662）。两组的测试时间无显著差异（P=0.650）。然而，3/10 的 MV 图（33%）的右眼半视野明显不佳（距离优势眼），而 0/15 的 MF 图则无。此外，MV 组占总 ULs（20/29）的 79%，所有这些 ULs均分布在真正双眼 VF 之外或边界处。
所有纳入的 VF 均符合英国驾驶标准标准。MV 组中遇到的 VF 缺陷模式很有趣，因为大多数 UL（13/20；65%）对应于距离优势眼的单眼 VF。
