新一代衍射三焦点和扩展焦深人工晶状体的比较评估

A Comparative Evaluation of a New Generation of Diffractive Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses.

作者信息

Cochener Beatrice, Boutillier Guillaume, Lamard Mathieu, Auberger-Zagnoli Claire

出版信息

J Refract Surg. 2018 Aug 1;34(8):507-514. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02.

DOI:10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02

PMID:30089179

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the performance of two diffractive trifocal and one extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

In this 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, comparative study, patients undergoing routine cataract surgery were randomized to receive one of two trifocal IOLs (AcrySof IQ PanOptix; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, or FineVision Micro F; PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or an EDOF IOL (TECNIS Symfony; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Abbott Park, IL). There were 20 patients in each group. The primary outcome was binocular and monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuity. The secondary outcomes were quality of vision and aberrometry.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between groups in either monocular (P = .717) or binocular (P = .837) UDVA. Monocular and binocular UNVA were statistically and significantly better for both trifocal lenses than for the EDOF IOL (P = .002). The percentage of patients with J2 UNVA was 52.5% monocularly and 70% binocularly for the TECNIS Symfony IOL, 81.5% monocularly and 100% binocularly for the AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL, and 82.5% monocularly and 95% binocularly for the FineVision Micro F IOL. There was no significant difference in binocular UIVA between groups; VA was better than 0.6 in 55%, 53%, and 35% of patients with the TECNIS Symfony, AcrySof IQ Pan-Optix, and FineVision Micro F IOLs, respectively. Overall, 90% patients achieved spectacle independence. There were no differences in visual symptoms and aberrometry among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All three IOLs provided good visual acuity at all distances, a high percentage of spectacle independence, and little or no impact of visual symptoms on the patients' daily functioning. Near vision was statistically better for both trifocal IOLs compared to the EDOF IOL. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):507-514.].

摘要

目的

评估并比较两种衍射三焦点人工晶状体（IOL）和一种扩展景深（EDOF）人工晶状体的性能。

方法

在这项为期6个月的单中心前瞻性随机对照研究中，接受常规白内障手术的患者被随机分为三组，分别植入两种三焦点IOL（AcrySof IQ PanOptix；爱尔康实验室公司，得克萨斯州沃思堡市，或FineVision Micro F；PhysIOL SA，比利时列日市）中的一种，或一种EDOF IOL（TECNIS Symfony；雅培医疗光学公司，伊利诺伊州雅培公园）。每组20例患者。主要观察指标为双眼及单眼未矫正远视力（UDVA）、中视力（UIVA）和近视力（UNVA）。次要观察指标为视觉质量和像差测量。

结果

单眼（P = 0.717）或双眼（P = 0.837）UDVA在各组间无统计学显著差异。两种三焦点人工晶状体的单眼和双眼UNVA在统计学上均显著优于EDOF人工晶状体（P = 0.002）。对于TECNIS Symfony人工晶状体，单眼J2 UNVA的患者比例为52.5%，双眼为70%；对于AcrySof IQ PanOptix人工晶状体，单眼为81.5%，双眼为100%；对于FineVision Micro F人工晶状体，单眼为82.5%，双眼为95%。各组间双眼UIVA无显著差异；TECNIS Symfony、AcrySof IQ PanOptix和FineVision Micro F人工晶状体患者中，视力优于0.6的比例分别为55%、53%和35%。总体而言，90%的患者术后无需戴眼镜。各组间视觉症状和像差测量无差异。