Acta ophthalmologica · 2026
Patient-reported outcome measures after non-diffractive extended range of field IOL implantation: PureSee versus Vivity.
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.
Koh Kyungmin, Tuuminen Raimo, Na Dong Gyu, Jeon Sohee
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To perform a head-to-head comparison of two extended range of field intraocular lenses (IOLs) for their patient-reported outcome measures.
SETTING: Keye Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
DESIGN: Clinical cohort study.
METHODS: Eighty-five emmetropic bilaterally operated patients (PureSee [N = 34] vs. AcrySof Vivity [N = 51]) were compared for their visual outcomes, dysphotopsia (scale 0-100), and spectacle-independent visual function index (VF)-14 questionnaire scores at the 6-month timepoint.
RESULTS: Baseline patient and ophthalmic variables were comparable between the groups. Acrysof Vivity provided better uncorrected near (0.21 ± 0.10 vs. 0.28 ± 0.07 LogMAR units, p < 0.001) and intermediate visual acuities (0.08 ± 0.09 vs. 0.22 ± 0.08 LogMAR units, p < 0.001) compared with PureSee. In contrast, contrast sensitivities in photopic (1.57 ± 0.14 vs. 1.45 ± 0.17 LogCWeber, p = 0.024) and mesopic conditions (1.30 ± 0.12 vs. 1.19 ± 0.17 LogCWeber, p = 0.025) were greater for PureSee than Acrysof Vivity. PureSee was associated with overall mean dysphotopsia scores (1.3 ± 3.2 vs. 5.8 ± 9.3, p = 0.009) significantly less than for Acrysof Vivity. Spectacle-independent VF-14 scores for visual acuities at near, specifically reading small print (76.0 ± 20.0 vs. 65.9 ± 22.4, p = 0.046), newspaper or a book (94.8 ± 11.5 vs. 80.3 ± 19.5, p < 0.001), and large-print or numbers on a telephone (88.0 ± 15.4 vs. 79.5 ± 18.2, p = 0.030) were significantly greater for Acrysof Vivity than PureSee, whereas overall mean spectacle-independent VF-14 scores remained statistically non-significant for the two IOLs (92.6 ± 5.7 vs. 89.3 ± 9.7, respectively; p = 0.115).
CONCLUSIONS: Acrysof Vivity was associated with greater spectacle-independent near visual acuity and visual function for reading, while PureSee outperformed in photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities, glare, starburst, and overall dysphotopsia. Based on these pros and cons, optimal extended range of field IOL selection should be aligned with the individual's needs and concerns.
SETTING: Keye Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
DESIGN: Clinical cohort study.
METHODS: Eighty-five emmetropic bilaterally operated patients (PureSee [N = 34] vs. AcrySof Vivity [N = 51]) were compared for their visual outcomes, dysphotopsia (scale 0-100), and spectacle-independent visual function index (VF)-14 questionnaire scores at the 6-month timepoint.
RESULTS: Baseline patient and ophthalmic variables were comparable between the groups. Acrysof Vivity provided better uncorrected near (0.21 ± 0.10 vs. 0.28 ± 0.07 LogMAR units, p < 0.001) and intermediate visual acuities (0.08 ± 0.09 vs. 0.22 ± 0.08 LogMAR units, p < 0.001) compared with PureSee. In contrast, contrast sensitivities in photopic (1.57 ± 0.14 vs. 1.45 ± 0.17 LogCWeber, p = 0.024) and mesopic conditions (1.30 ± 0.12 vs. 1.19 ± 0.17 LogCWeber, p = 0.025) were greater for PureSee than Acrysof Vivity. PureSee was associated with overall mean dysphotopsia scores (1.3 ± 3.2 vs. 5.8 ± 9.3, p = 0.009) significantly less than for Acrysof Vivity. Spectacle-independent VF-14 scores for visual acuities at near, specifically reading small print (76.0 ± 20.0 vs. 65.9 ± 22.4, p = 0.046), newspaper or a book (94.8 ± 11.5 vs. 80.3 ± 19.5, p < 0.001), and large-print or numbers on a telephone (88.0 ± 15.4 vs. 79.5 ± 18.2, p = 0.030) were significantly greater for Acrysof Vivity than PureSee, whereas overall mean spectacle-independent VF-14 scores remained statistically non-significant for the two IOLs (92.6 ± 5.7 vs. 89.3 ± 9.7, respectively; p = 0.115).
CONCLUSIONS: Acrysof Vivity was associated with greater spectacle-independent near visual acuity and visual function for reading, while PureSee outperformed in photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities, glare, starburst, and overall dysphotopsia. Based on these pros and cons, optimal extended range of field IOL selection should be aligned with the individual's needs and concerns.