Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2019
Blue light-filtering and violet light-filtering hydrophobic acrylic foldable intraocular lenses: Intraindividual comparison.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Nakano Shinichiro, Miyata Akira, Kizawa Junya, Kurosaka Daijiro, Miyata Kazunori, Oshika Tetsuro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes after cataract surgery and implantation of a blue light-filtering IOL (AcrySof IQ SN60WF) or a violet light-filtering intraocular lens (IOL) (OptiBlue ZCB00V).
SETTING: Four surgical sites in Japan.
DESIGN: Prospective case series.
METHODS: One eye of patients with bilateral cataract was randomly allocated to the blue light-filtering IOL and the fellow eye to the violet light-filtering IOL. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were assessed over 3 months. The incidence of cyanopsia was evaluated using the neutralization method.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 110 eyes of 55 patients. There was no significant difference in visual acuity between the two IOLs. Based on the neutralization results 1 week postoperatively, 15 cases (27.8%) with the light-filtering IOL and 8 cases (14.8%) with the violent light-filtering IOL had cyanopsia; the difference reached statistical significance (P = .049). After 2 weeks, the difference in the incidence of cyanopsia was not significant. Postoperative contrast sensitivity under photopic condition at 1 week and 3 months and contrast sensitivity under mesopic conditions at 3 months were significantly better with the violet light-filtering IOL than with the blue light-filtering IOL (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The violet light-filtering IOL yielded highly satisfactory clinical outcomes, including reduction of cyanopsia and a potential improvement in contrast sensitivity. The different chromophores of the IOL and its different material and design might have contributed.
SETTING: Four surgical sites in Japan.
DESIGN: Prospective case series.
METHODS: One eye of patients with bilateral cataract was randomly allocated to the blue light-filtering IOL and the fellow eye to the violet light-filtering IOL. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were assessed over 3 months. The incidence of cyanopsia was evaluated using the neutralization method.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 110 eyes of 55 patients. There was no significant difference in visual acuity between the two IOLs. Based on the neutralization results 1 week postoperatively, 15 cases (27.8%) with the light-filtering IOL and 8 cases (14.8%) with the violent light-filtering IOL had cyanopsia; the difference reached statistical significance (P = .049). After 2 weeks, the difference in the incidence of cyanopsia was not significant. Postoperative contrast sensitivity under photopic condition at 1 week and 3 months and contrast sensitivity under mesopic conditions at 3 months were significantly better with the violet light-filtering IOL than with the blue light-filtering IOL (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The violet light-filtering IOL yielded highly satisfactory clinical outcomes, including reduction of cyanopsia and a potential improvement in contrast sensitivity. The different chromophores of the IOL and its different material and design might have contributed.