Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2012
Comparison of visual results with accommodating intraocular lenses versus mini-monovision with a monofocal intraocular lens.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Beiko George H H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare near vision and quality of vision after controlling for pseudoaccommodation in patients with single-optic accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs) or monofocal IOLs targeted for mini-monovision.
SETTING: Clinical practice.
DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to bilateral implantation of the Crystalens HD silicone accommodating IOL, the Tetraflex acrylic accommodating IOL, or the Tecnis 1-piece monofocal (nonaccommodating) control IOL. The target refraction for the control group was mini-monovision (-0.25 diopter [D] and -0.75 D). In the accommodating IOL groups, manufacturer recommendations were followed; that is, a target refraction of mini-monovision (-0.25 D and -0.75 D) in the acrylic accommodating group and +0.25 D in the silicone accommodating group. Pupil size and anterior corneal spherical aberration were measured preoperatively. Main outcome measures were binocular target refraction corrected near vision and contrast sensitivity 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups in age, photopic or mesopic pupil size, anterior corneal spherical aberration, corneal astigmatism, or the power of the IOLs implanted. Binocular distance visual acuity at 4 m was 20/20(-) in all groups, intermediate vision was approximately 20/25, and near vision was 20/40 to 20/50. There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups in visual acuity or contrast sensitivity.
CONCLUSION: Single-optic accommodating IOLs did not offer a significant advantage in near visual acuity over mini-monovision with a monofocal (nonaccommodating) IOL.
SETTING: Clinical practice.
DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to bilateral implantation of the Crystalens HD silicone accommodating IOL, the Tetraflex acrylic accommodating IOL, or the Tecnis 1-piece monofocal (nonaccommodating) control IOL. The target refraction for the control group was mini-monovision (-0.25 diopter [D] and -0.75 D). In the accommodating IOL groups, manufacturer recommendations were followed; that is, a target refraction of mini-monovision (-0.25 D and -0.75 D) in the acrylic accommodating group and +0.25 D in the silicone accommodating group. Pupil size and anterior corneal spherical aberration were measured preoperatively. Main outcome measures were binocular target refraction corrected near vision and contrast sensitivity 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups in age, photopic or mesopic pupil size, anterior corneal spherical aberration, corneal astigmatism, or the power of the IOLs implanted. Binocular distance visual acuity at 4 m was 20/20(-) in all groups, intermediate vision was approximately 20/25, and near vision was 20/40 to 20/50. There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups in visual acuity or contrast sensitivity.
CONCLUSION: Single-optic accommodating IOLs did not offer a significant advantage in near visual acuity over mini-monovision with a monofocal (nonaccommodating) IOL.