Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2015
Comparison of visual outcomes of 2 diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses.
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.
Marques Eduardo F, Ferreira Tiago B
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes after cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of 1 of 2 diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).
SETTING: Two clinical centers, Lisbon, Portugal.
DESIGN: Prospective comparative case series.
METHODS: Phacoemulsification with bilateral implantation of a Finevision Micro F IOL (Group 1) or an AT Lisa tri 839 MP IOL (Group 2) was performed. Over a 3-month follow-up, the main outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected monocular and binocular distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at 80 cm, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity at 40 cm, distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, presence of dysphotopsia, and use of spectacles.
RESULTS: Each group comprised 30 eyes (15 patients). The mean values at 3 months were UDVA, 0.03 logMAR ± 0.08 (SD) (Group 1) and 0.08 ± 0.12 (Group 2) (P = .765); DCIVA, 0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR and 0.18 ± 0.18 logMAR, respectively (P = .048); DCNVA, 0.03 ± 0.06 logMAR and 0.11 ± 0.08 logMAR, respectively (P = .032); SE, -0.25 ± 0.30 diopter (D) and -0.02 ± 0.39 D, respectively (P = .087). There was no significant difference in contrast sensitivity or dysphotopic phenomena between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both trifocal IOL models provided excellent distance, intermediate, and near visual outcomes. Monocular DCIVA and DCNVA appeared slightly better in Group 1. Predictability of the refractive results and optical performance were excellent, and all patients achieved spectacle independence.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Neither author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
SETTING: Two clinical centers, Lisbon, Portugal.
DESIGN: Prospective comparative case series.
METHODS: Phacoemulsification with bilateral implantation of a Finevision Micro F IOL (Group 1) or an AT Lisa tri 839 MP IOL (Group 2) was performed. Over a 3-month follow-up, the main outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected monocular and binocular distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at 80 cm, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity at 40 cm, distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, presence of dysphotopsia, and use of spectacles.
RESULTS: Each group comprised 30 eyes (15 patients). The mean values at 3 months were UDVA, 0.03 logMAR ± 0.08 (SD) (Group 1) and 0.08 ± 0.12 (Group 2) (P = .765); DCIVA, 0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR and 0.18 ± 0.18 logMAR, respectively (P = .048); DCNVA, 0.03 ± 0.06 logMAR and 0.11 ± 0.08 logMAR, respectively (P = .032); SE, -0.25 ± 0.30 diopter (D) and -0.02 ± 0.39 D, respectively (P = .087). There was no significant difference in contrast sensitivity or dysphotopic phenomena between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both trifocal IOL models provided excellent distance, intermediate, and near visual outcomes. Monocular DCIVA and DCNVA appeared slightly better in Group 1. Predictability of the refractive results and optical performance were excellent, and all patients achieved spectacle independence.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Neither author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.