Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2025
Comparison of visual function and patient-reported outcomes between two full range of field intraocular lenses: a randomized controlled study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное 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.
Modi Satish S, Lehmann Robert P, Fisher Bret L, Roth Richard E, Reiser Harvey
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare visual and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cataracts bilaterally implanted with PanOptix or Synergy intraocular lenses (IOLs).
SETTINGS: 5 sites in the United States.
DESIGN: Prospective, parallel-arm randomized patient-masked and examiner-masked clinical study.
METHODS: Adult patients with cataract (≥22 years) were randomized (1:1) to receive bilateral PanOptix or Synergy IOL implantation. Study endpoints: binocular uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (logMAR) at distance, intermediate (60 cm), and near (40 and 33 cm); defocus curve; patient-reported visual disturbances, spectacle independence, and visual satisfaction using questionnaires at 6 months; and binocular contrast sensitivity at 3 months.
RESULTS: At 6 months, PanOptix (n = 138) was noninferior to Synergy (n = 138) IOLs for photopic binocular UDVA and CDVA at all tested distances ( P < .05). Mesopic intermediate and near VA showed a similar trend. Defocus curves showed that both IOLs provided VA of ≤0.1 logMAR from -2.50 to +0.50 diopters (D) and <0.2 logMAR at -3.00 D. A significantly lower proportion of patients with PanOptix (vs Synergy) experienced starbursts and glare ( P < .05). Most patients in both groups reported never/rarely needing spectacles to see and high satisfaction with vision. Both IOLs provided similar binocular contrast sensitivity at 3 months under photopic and mesopic conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: PanOptix IOLs provided a similar full range of vision, spectacle independence, and contrast sensitivity, but superior tolerance to glare and starbursts, compared with Synergy IOLs.
SETTINGS: 5 sites in the United States.
DESIGN: Prospective, parallel-arm randomized patient-masked and examiner-masked clinical study.
METHODS: Adult patients with cataract (≥22 years) were randomized (1:1) to receive bilateral PanOptix or Synergy IOL implantation. Study endpoints: binocular uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (logMAR) at distance, intermediate (60 cm), and near (40 and 33 cm); defocus curve; patient-reported visual disturbances, spectacle independence, and visual satisfaction using questionnaires at 6 months; and binocular contrast sensitivity at 3 months.
RESULTS: At 6 months, PanOptix (n = 138) was noninferior to Synergy (n = 138) IOLs for photopic binocular UDVA and CDVA at all tested distances ( P < .05). Mesopic intermediate and near VA showed a similar trend. Defocus curves showed that both IOLs provided VA of ≤0.1 logMAR from -2.50 to +0.50 diopters (D) and <0.2 logMAR at -3.00 D. A significantly lower proportion of patients with PanOptix (vs Synergy) experienced starbursts and glare ( P < .05). Most patients in both groups reported never/rarely needing spectacles to see and high satisfaction with vision. Both IOLs provided similar binocular contrast sensitivity at 3 months under photopic and mesopic conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: PanOptix IOLs provided a similar full range of vision, spectacle independence, and contrast sensitivity, but superior tolerance to glare and starbursts, compared with Synergy IOLs.