Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2019
Defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting IOL designs: Diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive, and extended-depth-of-focus.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Böhm Myriam, Petermann Kerstin, Hemkeppler Eva, Kohnen Thomas
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs).
SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
DESIGN: Prospective case series.
METHODS: Patients included in the study had bilateral surgery with implantation of diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive (SegRef), or extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) presbyopia-correcting IOLs. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA) and near (DCNVA) visual acuities, defocus curve, and spectacle independence were measured.
RESULTS: The UDVA and CDVA were not significantly different between groups (P > .05); however, the EDOF group had worse near CDVA (P < .001). The trifocal and EDOF groups showed better DCIVA than the panfocal and SegRef group at 80 cm (P < .001); the EDOF and panfocal groups had comparable DCIVA at 60 cm (P > .05). Defocus curves showed no significant between-group differences from 4 m to 2 m (P > .05). The EDOF group had better visual acuity from 1 m to 67 cm than the trifocal and SegRef groups and better visual acuity than the panfocal group at 1 m (P > .05). Compared with the other IOLs, the panfocal IOL yielded significantly better visual acuity at 50 cm (P < .001) and the EDOF IOL worse visual acuity at 40 cm (P < .01). There was a significant difference in spectacle independence between the panfocal group and EDOF group (P < .05) but no difference between the other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The 4 IOLs provided equally good CDVA. The EDOF IOL yielded slightly better DCIVA but worse DCNVA than the other IOLs. Only the panfocal IOL gave better DCIVA at 50 cm.
SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
DESIGN: Prospective case series.
METHODS: Patients included in the study had bilateral surgery with implantation of diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive (SegRef), or extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) presbyopia-correcting IOLs. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA) and near (DCNVA) visual acuities, defocus curve, and spectacle independence were measured.
RESULTS: The UDVA and CDVA were not significantly different between groups (P > .05); however, the EDOF group had worse near CDVA (P < .001). The trifocal and EDOF groups showed better DCIVA than the panfocal and SegRef group at 80 cm (P < .001); the EDOF and panfocal groups had comparable DCIVA at 60 cm (P > .05). Defocus curves showed no significant between-group differences from 4 m to 2 m (P > .05). The EDOF group had better visual acuity from 1 m to 67 cm than the trifocal and SegRef groups and better visual acuity than the panfocal group at 1 m (P > .05). Compared with the other IOLs, the panfocal IOL yielded significantly better visual acuity at 50 cm (P < .001) and the EDOF IOL worse visual acuity at 40 cm (P < .01). There was a significant difference in spectacle independence between the panfocal group and EDOF group (P < .05) but no difference between the other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The 4 IOLs provided equally good CDVA. The EDOF IOL yielded slightly better DCIVA but worse DCNVA than the other IOLs. Only the panfocal IOL gave better DCIVA at 50 cm.