白内障手术用人工晶体

Candyce Hamel, Sharon Bailey
{"title":"白内障手术用人工晶体","authors":"Candyce Hamel, Sharon Bailey","doi":"10.51731/cjht.2023.775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What Is the Issue?
 
 A cataract is an opacity of the lens and is the leading cause of reversible visual impairment worldwide. There are no medical treatments for cataracts but surgical procedures that replace the lens with a synthetic lens (called an intraocular lens [IOL]) have shown to be effective for restoring vision.
 Premium lenses, including lenses to correct astigmatism (called toric lenses), are available but may not be covered by public or private health plans.
 Given that there is an increased cost associated with toric lenses, there is a need to evaluate their effectiveness compared to other available corrective options, including glasses.
 
 What Did We Do?
 
 To inform decisions about the appropriate use of astigmatism-correcting IOLs, CADTH sought to identify and summarize literature that evaluates the clinical effectiveness of toric lenses against other corrective options.
 An information specialist conducted a search of peer-reviewed and grey literature sources. One reviewer screened citations, and selected and critically appraised the included studies.
 
 What Did We Find?
 
 One systematic review (SR), 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 prospective nonrandomized study, and 6 retrospective nonrandomized studies were identified that evaluated the clinical effectiveness of toric versus nontoric IOLs implanted during cataract surgery, including 1 with a pediatric focus.
 Toric IOLs may be better than nontoric IOLs for postoperative astigmatism, but this may be dependent on the measurement of astigmatism evaluated (e.g., corneal astigmatism, residual refractive astigmatism, subjective refraction astigmatism, autorefraction astigmatism, spherical equivalent astigmatism, cylinder astigmatism, surgically induced astigmatism).
 Toric IOLs may be better than nontoric IOLs for postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (VA), but it is unclear if this results in a clinically meaningful difference to the patient. None of the studies reported on spectacle independence.
 Patient-centred outcomes were seldomly reported across the studies, and rarely used validated tools, making it difficult to conclude if there were patient-centred outcome differences between toric and nontoric IOLs.
 Harms were reported across the studies through intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and adverse events. Postoperative complications were statistically higher in the toric group in the SR, but there were not statistically significant differences in harms reported in the primary studies.
 
 What Does it Mean?
 
 It is difficult to draw conclusions across the studies and outcomes due to the variation in how outcomes were reported or because few studies report on these outcomes.
 A proposed minimum set of core outcomes for cataract surgery was published in 2015. The studies included in this report did not align with this minimum set of outcomes. For example, as VA is not synonymous with improved visual functioning for patients, evaluating patient-reported visual functioning with a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tool is part of the minimum set of core outcomes. Future research should incorporate core outcomes, including PROMs.
 Although toric IOLs statistically improved uncorrected VA, when compared to nontoric lenses, statistical significance does not imply a difference that is clinically meaningful to a patient.
","PeriodicalId":9437,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Health Technologies","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intraocular Lenses for Cataract Surgery\",\"authors\":\"Candyce Hamel, Sharon Bailey\",\"doi\":\"10.51731/cjht.2023.775\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What Is the Issue?
 
 A cataract is an opacity of the lens and is the leading cause of reversible visual impairment worldwide. There are no medical treatments for cataracts but surgical procedures that replace the lens with a synthetic lens (called an intraocular lens [IOL]) have shown to be effective for restoring vision.
 Premium lenses, including lenses to correct astigmatism (called toric lenses), are available but may not be covered by public or private health plans.
 Given that there is an increased cost associated with toric lenses, there is a need to evaluate their effectiveness compared to other available corrective options, including glasses.
 
 What Did We Do?
 
 To inform decisions about the appropriate use of astigmatism-correcting IOLs, CADTH sought to identify and summarize literature that evaluates the clinical effectiveness of toric lenses against other corrective options.
 An information specialist conducted a search of peer-reviewed and grey literature sources. One reviewer screened citations, and selected and critically appraised the included studies.
 
 What Did We Find?
 
 One systematic review (SR), 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 prospective nonrandomized study, and 6 retrospective nonrandomized studies were identified that evaluated the clinical effectiveness of toric versus nontoric IOLs implanted during cataract surgery, including 1 with a pediatric focus.
 Toric IOLs may be better than nontoric IOLs for postoperative astigmatism, but this may be dependent on the measurement of astigmatism evaluated (e.g., corneal astigmatism, residual refractive astigmatism, subjective refraction astigmatism, autorefraction astigmatism, spherical equivalent astigmatism, cylinder astigmatism, surgically induced astigmatism).
 Toric IOLs may be better than nontoric IOLs for postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (VA), but it is unclear if this results in a clinically meaningful difference to the patient. None of the studies reported on spectacle independence.
 Patient-centred outcomes were seldomly reported across the studies, and rarely used validated tools, making it difficult to conclude if there were patient-centred outcome differences between toric and nontoric IOLs.
 Harms were reported across the studies through intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and adverse events. Postoperative complications were statistically higher in the toric group in the SR, but there were not statistically significant differences in harms reported in the primary studies.
 
 What Does it Mean?
 
 It is difficult to draw conclusions across the studies and outcomes due to the variation in how outcomes were reported or because few studies report on these outcomes.
 A proposed minimum set of core outcomes for cataract surgery was published in 2015. The studies included in this report did not align with this minimum set of outcomes. For example, as VA is not synonymous with improved visual functioning for patients, evaluating patient-reported visual functioning with a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tool is part of the minimum set of core outcomes. Future research should incorporate core outcomes, including PROMs.
 Although toric IOLs statistically improved uncorrected VA, when compared to nontoric lenses, statistical significance does not imply a difference that is clinically meaningful to a patient.
\",\"PeriodicalId\":9437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Health Technologies\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Health Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51731/cjht.2023.775\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Health Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51731/cjht.2023.775","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

问题是什么? & # x0D;白内障是一种晶状体混浊,是世界范围内可逆性视力损害的主要原因。目前还没有药物可以治疗白内障,但是用人工晶状体(人工晶状体[IOL])代替人工晶状体的外科手术对恢复视力是有效的。有高级镜片,包括矫正散光的镜片(称为屈光透镜),但可能不包括在公共或私人健康计划中。 考虑到与环形镜片相关的成本增加,有必要与其他可用的矫正选择(包括眼镜)相比评估其有效性。 & # x0D;我们做了什么? & # x0D;为了告知有关适当使用散光矫正人工晶体的决定,CADTH试图识别和总结评估环形晶体与其他矫正选择的临床有效性的文献。 一位信息专家对同行评议的灰色文献资源进行了搜索。一位审稿人筛选引文,选择并严格评价纳入的研究。 & # x0D;我们发现了什么? & # x0D;1项系统综述(SR)、3项随机对照试验(rct)、1项前瞻性非随机研究和6项回顾性非随机研究评估了白内障手术中植入环状体与非环状体iol的临床疗效,其中1项为儿童焦点。对于术后散光,屈光环人工晶状体可能比非屈光环人工晶状体更好,但这可能取决于评估散光的测量(例如,角膜散光、残余屈光散光、主观屈光散光、自屈光散光、球等效散光、圆柱体散光、手术诱发散光)。对于术后未矫正视力(VA),环形人工晶状体可能优于非环形人工晶状体,但目前尚不清楚这是否会对患者产生临床意义上的差异。没有关于眼镜独立性的研究报道。 以患者为中心的结果在研究中很少被报道,并且很少使用经过验证的工具,这使得很难得出环形和非环形人工晶状体之间是否存在以患者为中心的结果差异。研究中通过术中并发症、术后并发症和不良事件报道了危害。术后并发症在SR组中toric组有统计学意义较高,但在初步研究中报告的危害方面差异无统计学意义。 & # x0D;这意味着什么? & # x0D;由于报告结果的方式不同,或者很少有研究报告这些结果,因此很难在研究和结果中得出结论。 2015年发布了一套拟议的白内障手术最低核心结果。本报告中包括的研究不符合这一最低结果集。例如,由于VA并不等同于改善患者的视觉功能,因此使用患者报告的结果测量(PROM)工具评估患者报告的视觉功能是最小核心结果集的一部分。未来的研究应纳入核心成果,包括prom。 虽然与非晶状体相比,环状体人工晶状体在统计学上改善了未矫正的白内障,但统计学意义并不意味着差异对患者具有临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intraocular Lenses for Cataract Surgery
What Is the Issue? A cataract is an opacity of the lens and is the leading cause of reversible visual impairment worldwide. There are no medical treatments for cataracts but surgical procedures that replace the lens with a synthetic lens (called an intraocular lens [IOL]) have shown to be effective for restoring vision. Premium lenses, including lenses to correct astigmatism (called toric lenses), are available but may not be covered by public or private health plans. Given that there is an increased cost associated with toric lenses, there is a need to evaluate their effectiveness compared to other available corrective options, including glasses. What Did We Do? To inform decisions about the appropriate use of astigmatism-correcting IOLs, CADTH sought to identify and summarize literature that evaluates the clinical effectiveness of toric lenses against other corrective options. An information specialist conducted a search of peer-reviewed and grey literature sources. One reviewer screened citations, and selected and critically appraised the included studies. What Did We Find? One systematic review (SR), 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 prospective nonrandomized study, and 6 retrospective nonrandomized studies were identified that evaluated the clinical effectiveness of toric versus nontoric IOLs implanted during cataract surgery, including 1 with a pediatric focus. Toric IOLs may be better than nontoric IOLs for postoperative astigmatism, but this may be dependent on the measurement of astigmatism evaluated (e.g., corneal astigmatism, residual refractive astigmatism, subjective refraction astigmatism, autorefraction astigmatism, spherical equivalent astigmatism, cylinder astigmatism, surgically induced astigmatism). Toric IOLs may be better than nontoric IOLs for postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (VA), but it is unclear if this results in a clinically meaningful difference to the patient. None of the studies reported on spectacle independence. Patient-centred outcomes were seldomly reported across the studies, and rarely used validated tools, making it difficult to conclude if there were patient-centred outcome differences between toric and nontoric IOLs. Harms were reported across the studies through intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and adverse events. Postoperative complications were statistically higher in the toric group in the SR, but there were not statistically significant differences in harms reported in the primary studies. What Does it Mean? It is difficult to draw conclusions across the studies and outcomes due to the variation in how outcomes were reported or because few studies report on these outcomes. A proposed minimum set of core outcomes for cataract surgery was published in 2015. The studies included in this report did not align with this minimum set of outcomes. For example, as VA is not synonymous with improved visual functioning for patients, evaluating patient-reported visual functioning with a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tool is part of the minimum set of core outcomes. Future research should incorporate core outcomes, including PROMs. Although toric IOLs statistically improved uncorrected VA, when compared to nontoric lenses, statistical significance does not imply a difference that is clinically meaningful to a patient.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Relugolix (Orgovyx) Nabilone for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Newborn Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus in Canada 2023 Abstracts of the Canadian Association for Population Therapeutics The Development of a Model Validation Tool to Assist in the Conduct of Economic Evaluations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1