Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2010
Effect of astigmatism on visual acuity in eyes with a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Hayashi Ken, Manabe Shin-Ichi, Yoshida Motoaki, Hayashi Hideyuki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To examine the effect of astigmatism on visual acuity at various distances in eyes with a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL).
SETTING: Hayashi Eye Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.
METHODS: In this study, eyes had implantation of a diffractive multifocal IOL with a +3.00 diopter (D) addition (add) (AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1), a diffractive multifocal IOL with a +4.00 D add (AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD3), or a monofocal IOL (AcrySof SN60WF). Astigmatism was simulated by adding cylindrical lenses of various diopters (0.00, 0.50, 1.00, 1.50, 2.00), after which distance-corrected acuity was measured at various distances.
RESULTS: At most distances, the mean visual acuity in the multifocal IOL groups decreased in proportion to the added astigmatism. With astigmatism of 0.00 D and 0.50 D, distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) in the +4.00 D group and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) and DCNVA in the +3.00 D group were significantly better than in the monofocal group; the corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was similar. The DCNVA with astigmatism of 1.00 D was better in 2 multifocal groups; however, with astigmatism of 1.50 D and 2.00 D, the CDVA and DCIVA at 0.5m in the multifocal groups were significantly worse than in the monofocal group, although the DCNVA was similar. With astigmatism of 1.00 D or greater, the mean CDVA and DCNVA in the multifocal groups reached useful levels (20/40).
CONCLUSION: The presence of astigmatism in eyes with a diffractive multifocal IOL compromised all distance visual acuities, suggesting the need to correct astigmatism of greater than 1.00 D.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
SETTING: Hayashi Eye Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.
METHODS: In this study, eyes had implantation of a diffractive multifocal IOL with a +3.00 diopter (D) addition (add) (AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1), a diffractive multifocal IOL with a +4.00 D add (AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD3), or a monofocal IOL (AcrySof SN60WF). Astigmatism was simulated by adding cylindrical lenses of various diopters (0.00, 0.50, 1.00, 1.50, 2.00), after which distance-corrected acuity was measured at various distances.
RESULTS: At most distances, the mean visual acuity in the multifocal IOL groups decreased in proportion to the added astigmatism. With astigmatism of 0.00 D and 0.50 D, distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) in the +4.00 D group and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) and DCNVA in the +3.00 D group were significantly better than in the monofocal group; the corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was similar. The DCNVA with astigmatism of 1.00 D was better in 2 multifocal groups; however, with astigmatism of 1.50 D and 2.00 D, the CDVA and DCIVA at 0.5m in the multifocal groups were significantly worse than in the monofocal group, although the DCNVA was similar. With astigmatism of 1.00 D or greater, the mean CDVA and DCNVA in the multifocal groups reached useful levels (20/40).
CONCLUSION: The presence of astigmatism in eyes with a diffractive multifocal IOL compromised all distance visual acuities, suggesting the need to correct astigmatism of greater than 1.00 D.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.