European journal of ophthalmology · 2023
Visual results and subjective satisfaction after implantation of two different trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses models (AcrySof IQ PanOptix and AT LISA tri 839 MP).
СтатьяСравнительное 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.
Boris Malyugin, Olga Fomina, Nikolay Sobolev, Alexander Belokopytov, Eliya Levinger, Boris Knyazer, Krauthammer Mark, Yahalomi Tal, Asaf Achiron
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare visual results following the implantation of two distinct diffractive trifocal IOLs utilizing various vision evaluation techniques and subjective satisfaction.
METHODS: The study included 32 eyes receiving AcrySof IQ PanOptix implantation and 32 receiving AT LISA tri 839 MP. Post-operative examination at one year included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), distance-corrected visual acuity (DCVA) at 4 m, 80 cm, 60 cm, and 40 cm, Contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, and a questionnaire on subjective quality of vision, optical phenomena, and spectacle independence.
RESULTS: The two groups were similar in baseline demographics, pre-operative visual, biometric data (except for axial length), and surgical paraments. The PanOptix outperformed the AT LISA tri in the intermediate range when using the standard visual acuity testing (UCVA: 0.23 ± 0.14 logMAR vs. 0.31 ± 0.17 logMAR, p = 0.04; BCVA: 0.21 ± 0.12 vs. 0.28 ± 0.14, p = 0.03) and in the intermediate and far range when using the interactive computer program (intermediate: UNVA "E" optotype test: 0.05 ± 0.12 vs. 0.12 ± 0.13, p = 0.03; Far: UNVA "E" optotype: 0.07 ± 0.12 vs. 0.13 ± 0.10, p = 0.05). In addition, the PanOptix group had higher contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions with and without glare at all spatial frequencies. There was no difference in subjective outcomes between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received PanOptix IOL had better visual outcomes for intermediate and far with higher contrast sensitivity under various conditions. Based on patients ' needs and demands, these results could support discussion when tailoring the optimal multifocal IOl.
METHODS: The study included 32 eyes receiving AcrySof IQ PanOptix implantation and 32 receiving AT LISA tri 839 MP. Post-operative examination at one year included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), distance-corrected visual acuity (DCVA) at 4 m, 80 cm, 60 cm, and 40 cm, Contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, and a questionnaire on subjective quality of vision, optical phenomena, and spectacle independence.
RESULTS: The two groups were similar in baseline demographics, pre-operative visual, biometric data (except for axial length), and surgical paraments. The PanOptix outperformed the AT LISA tri in the intermediate range when using the standard visual acuity testing (UCVA: 0.23 ± 0.14 logMAR vs. 0.31 ± 0.17 logMAR, p = 0.04; BCVA: 0.21 ± 0.12 vs. 0.28 ± 0.14, p = 0.03) and in the intermediate and far range when using the interactive computer program (intermediate: UNVA "E" optotype test: 0.05 ± 0.12 vs. 0.12 ± 0.13, p = 0.03; Far: UNVA "E" optotype: 0.07 ± 0.12 vs. 0.13 ± 0.10, p = 0.05). In addition, the PanOptix group had higher contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions with and without glare at all spatial frequencies. There was no difference in subjective outcomes between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received PanOptix IOL had better visual outcomes for intermediate and far with higher contrast sensitivity under various conditions. Based on patients ' needs and demands, these results could support discussion when tailoring the optimal multifocal IOl.