Suppr超能文献

3种植入式人工晶状体(可调节型、多焦点型和单焦点型)植入术后视觉性能的比较。

Comparison of visual performance after implantation of 3 types of intraocular lenses: accommodative, multifocal, and monofocal.

作者信息

Tan Nian, Zheng Dengyi, Ye Jian

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Surgery Research, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing - China.

出版信息

Eur J Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep-Oct;24(5):693-8. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000425. Epub 2014 Jan 27.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the performance of accommodative, multifocal, and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

In this clinical control study, 3 types of IOL were implanted in 128 eyes of 86 patients with age-related cataract who underwent phacoemulsification. Accommodative (Tetraflex), multifocal (ZMA00), and monofocal (Akreos Advanced Optics [AO]) IOLs were implanted into 43, 40, and 45 eyes, respectively. The uncorrected, best-corrected distance, contrast sensitivity, and distance-corrected intermediate and near visual acuity (UCDVA, BCDVA, CSVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA, respectively), amplitude of pseudoaccommodation, and patient satisfaction were measured at 1, 3, and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Differences in CSVA at all contrast degrees, UCDVA, and BCDVA among the 3 groups were not significant. Patients in the Akreos AO group exhibited a poorer DCIVA and DCNVA and experienced less pseudoaccommodation compared to patients in the other 2 groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery (p<0.01). Patients in the ZMA00 group exhibited a better DCIVA and experienced more pseudoaccommodation than patients in the Tetraflex group (3 months: p<0.05, 12 months: p<0.01 for both outcomes). Three months after surgery, total spectacle independence was achieved by 84.4%, 60.7%, and 17.2% of the ZMA00, Tetraflex, and Akreos AO group patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

All 3 types of IOLs allowed greater distance visual acuity; however, multifocal IOLs produced better DCIVA and DCNVA and more pseudoaccommodation and spectacle independence. Accommodative IOLs ranked second. Neither accommodative nor multifocal IOLs reduced CSVA.

摘要

目的

比较调节性、多焦点和单焦点人工晶状体(IOL)的性能。

方法

在这项临床对照研究中,86例年龄相关性白内障患者的128只眼睛接受了超声乳化手术,并植入了3种类型的IOL。分别将调节性(Tetraflex)、多焦点(ZMA00)和单焦点(Akreos Advanced Optics [AO])IOL植入43只、40只和45只眼睛。在术后1个月、3个月和12个月测量未矫正视力、最佳矫正远距离视力、对比敏感度以及远距离矫正的中距离和近视力(分别为UCDVA、BCDVA、CSVA、DCIVA和DCNVA)、假性调节幅度和患者满意度。

结果

3组之间在所有对比度下的CSVA、UCDVA和BCDVA差异均无统计学意义。与其他2组患者相比,Akreos AO组患者在术后3个月和12个月时DCIVA和DCNVA较差,且假性调节较少(p<0.01)。ZMA00组患者的DCIVA优于Tetraflex组,且假性调节更多(3个月时:两种结果p<0.05;12个月时:两种结果p<0.01)。术后3个月,ZMA00组、Tetraflex组和Akreos AO组分别有84.4%、60.7%和17.2%的患者完全脱离眼镜。

结论

所有3种类型的IOL均可提供较好的远距离视力;然而,多焦点IOL产生更好的DCIVA和DCNVA、更多的假性调节和更高的眼镜脱镜率。调节性IOL排名第二。调节性和多焦点IOL均未降低CSVA。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验