Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2012
Correction of undesirable pseudophakic refractive error with the Sulcoflex intraocular lens.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Falzon Kevin, Stewart Owen G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual outcomes, efficacy, predictability, and short-term safety of implanting the Sulcoflex (Rayner Intraocular Lenses Ltd) intraocular lens (IOL) to correct residual pseudophakic errors.
METHODS: Retrospective study of patients undergoing implantation of the Sulcoflex IOL. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity and refractive outcomes were evaluated. Postoperative follow-up was at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.
RESULTS: Fifteen eyes (13 patients) were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 20 months (range: 14 to 30 months). The Sulcoflex aspheric (653L) and toric (653T) IOLs were implanted in 3 and 12 eyes, respectively. Preoperatively, mean logMAR (Snellen) UDVA and CDVA were 0.44 (20/55) and 0.05 (20/22), respectively. At 3 months, all eyes achieved logMAR UDVA of 0.20 (20/32) or better, with 10 (67%) eyes achieving UDVA of 0 (20/20) or better. Preoperative mean spherical and astigmatic errors were 1.07±0.83 diopters (D) and -1.45±0.98 D, respectively. Preoperative mean spherical equivalent refraction was -0.54±1.11 (D). Postoperative mean sphere and astigmatism at 3 months were -0.25±0.38 D and -0.50±0.57 D, respectively. Postoperative mean spherical equivalent refraction at 3 months was -0.15±0.28 D. All patients were within 1.00 D of attempted correction, with 93% within 0.50 D. Linear regression analysis showed good correlation (R²=0.72) between attempted versus achieved spherical equivalent refractions. No significant intra- or postoperative complications occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the Sulcoflex IOL was found to be an effective and predictable option for enhancing postoperative refractive results and reducing spectacle dependence for distance after surgery. The IOL was well tolerated in all eyes.
METHODS: Retrospective study of patients undergoing implantation of the Sulcoflex IOL. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity and refractive outcomes were evaluated. Postoperative follow-up was at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.
RESULTS: Fifteen eyes (13 patients) were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 20 months (range: 14 to 30 months). The Sulcoflex aspheric (653L) and toric (653T) IOLs were implanted in 3 and 12 eyes, respectively. Preoperatively, mean logMAR (Snellen) UDVA and CDVA were 0.44 (20/55) and 0.05 (20/22), respectively. At 3 months, all eyes achieved logMAR UDVA of 0.20 (20/32) or better, with 10 (67%) eyes achieving UDVA of 0 (20/20) or better. Preoperative mean spherical and astigmatic errors were 1.07±0.83 diopters (D) and -1.45±0.98 D, respectively. Preoperative mean spherical equivalent refraction was -0.54±1.11 (D). Postoperative mean sphere and astigmatism at 3 months were -0.25±0.38 D and -0.50±0.57 D, respectively. Postoperative mean spherical equivalent refraction at 3 months was -0.15±0.28 D. All patients were within 1.00 D of attempted correction, with 93% within 0.50 D. Linear regression analysis showed good correlation (R²=0.72) between attempted versus achieved spherical equivalent refractions. No significant intra- or postoperative complications occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the Sulcoflex IOL was found to be an effective and predictable option for enhancing postoperative refractive results and reducing spectacle dependence for distance after surgery. The IOL was well tolerated in all eyes.