Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 1996
Visual function in pseudophakic eyes with poly(methyl methacrylate), silicone, and acrylic intraocular lenses.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Kohnen S, Ferrer A, Brauweiler P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of visual function after cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with three lens materials.
SETTING: Klinik Dardenne, Bonn Bad Godesberg, Germany.
METHODS: In a prospective, randomized study, 55 patients having uncomplicated phacoemulsification received IOLs made of three materials: 16 received acrylic IOLs, 20 received silicone IOLs, and 19 received poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) IOLs. Pseudophakic patients with accompanying eye diseases were excluded. Visual acuity, glare sensitivity, contrast sensitivity, and mesopic acuity were evaluated 6 weeks postoperatively.
RESULTS: Postoperatively, best corrected visual acuity was excellent in all three lens groups. Acuity under bright light conditions and contrast sensitivity were low in all groups; mesopic acuity was extremely low in 73% of patients. Glare and contrast sensitivity were significantly better with PMMA and acrylic IOLs.
CONCLUSION: The visual quality achieved in pseudophakic eyes with three different lens materials was lower than expected. The results of individual visual function tests were better for PMMA and acrylic IOLs than for silicone IOLs.
SETTING: Klinik Dardenne, Bonn Bad Godesberg, Germany.
METHODS: In a prospective, randomized study, 55 patients having uncomplicated phacoemulsification received IOLs made of three materials: 16 received acrylic IOLs, 20 received silicone IOLs, and 19 received poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) IOLs. Pseudophakic patients with accompanying eye diseases were excluded. Visual acuity, glare sensitivity, contrast sensitivity, and mesopic acuity were evaluated 6 weeks postoperatively.
RESULTS: Postoperatively, best corrected visual acuity was excellent in all three lens groups. Acuity under bright light conditions and contrast sensitivity were low in all groups; mesopic acuity was extremely low in 73% of patients. Glare and contrast sensitivity were significantly better with PMMA and acrylic IOLs.
CONCLUSION: The visual quality achieved in pseudophakic eyes with three different lens materials was lower than expected. The results of individual visual function tests were better for PMMA and acrylic IOLs than for silicone IOLs.