既往角膜消融治疗远视患者植入两种三焦人工晶状体后的视力和屈光效果。

IF 4.1 1区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Eye and Vision Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1186/s40662-023-00366-x
Fernando Mayordomo-Cerdá, Julio Ortega-Usobiaga, Julio Baviera-Sabater, Rafael Bilbao-Calabuig, Fernando Llovet-Osuna, Vasyl Druchkiv, Rosario Cobo-Soriano
{"title":"既往角膜消融治疗远视患者植入两种三焦人工晶状体后的视力和屈光效果。","authors":"Fernando Mayordomo-Cerdá, Julio Ortega-Usobiaga, Julio Baviera-Sabater, Rafael Bilbao-Calabuig, Fernando Llovet-Osuna, Vasyl Druchkiv, Rosario Cobo-Soriano","doi":"10.1186/s40662-023-00366-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess whether a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with neutral spherical aberration (SA) provides better visual and refractive outcomes than a trifocal IOL with negative SA after hyperopic corneal laser ablation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified according to the IOL implanted after cataract or clear lens phacoemulsification [group 1, PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F (negative SA); group 2, Rayner RayOne Trifocal (neutral SA)]. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>198 eyes of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 comprised 120 eyes and group 2 comprised 78 eyes. At completion, the refractive and predictability results were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 for manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) (P < 0.001). Differences were not significant for UDVA (P = 0.647), CDVA (P = 0.343), UIVA (P = 0.059), UNVA (P = 0.382), binocular UIVA (P = 0.157), or binocular UNVA (P = 0.527). Safety and efficacy indices in refractive lens exchange (RLE) eyes were 0.96 and 0.91, and 0.89 and 0.93 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.254 and 0.168). Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (P > 0.05, all items).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In eyes previously treated with hyperopic corneal ablation, implantation of a trifocal IOL with neutral SA provided better efficacy and safety outcomes but worse predictability outcomes than those obtained with a trifocal model with negative SA.</p>","PeriodicalId":12194,"journal":{"name":"Eye and Vision","volume":"10 1","pages":"48"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10702098/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of two models of trifocal intraocular lenses in eyes with previous corneal ablation to treat hyperopia.\",\"authors\":\"Fernando Mayordomo-Cerdá, Julio Ortega-Usobiaga, Julio Baviera-Sabater, Rafael Bilbao-Calabuig, Fernando Llovet-Osuna, Vasyl Druchkiv, Rosario Cobo-Soriano\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40662-023-00366-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess whether a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with neutral spherical aberration (SA) provides better visual and refractive outcomes than a trifocal IOL with negative SA after hyperopic corneal laser ablation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified according to the IOL implanted after cataract or clear lens phacoemulsification [group 1, PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F (negative SA); group 2, Rayner RayOne Trifocal (neutral SA)]. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>198 eyes of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 comprised 120 eyes and group 2 comprised 78 eyes. At completion, the refractive and predictability results were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 for manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) (P < 0.001). Differences were not significant for UDVA (P = 0.647), CDVA (P = 0.343), UIVA (P = 0.059), UNVA (P = 0.382), binocular UIVA (P = 0.157), or binocular UNVA (P = 0.527). Safety and efficacy indices in refractive lens exchange (RLE) eyes were 0.96 and 0.91, and 0.89 and 0.93 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.254 and 0.168). Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (P > 0.05, all items).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In eyes previously treated with hyperopic corneal ablation, implantation of a trifocal IOL with neutral SA provided better efficacy and safety outcomes but worse predictability outcomes than those obtained with a trifocal model with negative SA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eye and Vision\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10702098/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eye and Vision\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-023-00366-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye and Vision","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-023-00366-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:评价中性球差(SA)的三焦人工晶状体(IOL)是否比阴性SA的三焦人工晶状体(IOL)在远视角膜激光消融后提供更好的视力和屈光结果。方法:回顾性比较研究。根据白内障或透明晶状体超声乳化术后人工晶体植入术进行分类[1组,PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F (SA阴性);第2组,Rayner RayOne三焦[中性SA]。我们评估了未矫正的距离视力(UDVA)、矫正的距离视力(CDVA)、未矫正的中间视力(UIVA)、未矫正的近视力(UNVA)、可预测性、安全性、有效性和满意度。结果:119例198眼符合纳入标准。第一组120只眼,第二组78只眼。完成手术后,1组的明显折射球当量(MRSE)的折射和可预测性结果显著优于2组(P < 0.05,所有项目)。结论:在既往接受过远视角膜消融治疗的患者中,中性SA的三焦人工晶状体植入比阴性SA的三焦模型具有更好的疗效和安全性,但可预测性较差。
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
Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of two models of trifocal intraocular lenses in eyes with previous corneal ablation to treat hyperopia.

Background: To assess whether a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with neutral spherical aberration (SA) provides better visual and refractive outcomes than a trifocal IOL with negative SA after hyperopic corneal laser ablation.

Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified according to the IOL implanted after cataract or clear lens phacoemulsification [group 1, PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F (negative SA); group 2, Rayner RayOne Trifocal (neutral SA)]. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction.

Results: 198 eyes of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 comprised 120 eyes and group 2 comprised 78 eyes. At completion, the refractive and predictability results were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 for manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) (P < 0.001). Differences were not significant for UDVA (P = 0.647), CDVA (P = 0.343), UIVA (P = 0.059), UNVA (P = 0.382), binocular UIVA (P = 0.157), or binocular UNVA (P = 0.527). Safety and efficacy indices in refractive lens exchange (RLE) eyes were 0.96 and 0.91, and 0.89 and 0.93 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.254 and 0.168). Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (P > 0.05, all items).

Conclusion: In eyes previously treated with hyperopic corneal ablation, implantation of a trifocal IOL with neutral SA provided better efficacy and safety outcomes but worse predictability outcomes than those obtained with a trifocal model with negative SA.

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
Eye and Vision
Eye and Vision OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
89
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Eye and Vision is an open access, peer-reviewed journal for ophthalmologists and visual science specialists. It welcomes research articles, reviews, methodologies, commentaries, case reports, perspectives and short reports encompassing all aspects of eye and vision. Topics of interest include but are not limited to: current developments of theoretical, experimental and clinical investigations in ophthalmology, optometry and vision science which focus on novel and high-impact findings on central issues pertaining to biology, pathophysiology and etiology of eye diseases as well as advances in diagnostic techniques, surgical treatment, instrument updates, the latest drug findings, results of clinical trials and research findings. It aims to provide ophthalmologists and visual science specialists with the latest developments in theoretical, experimental and clinical investigations in eye and vision.
期刊最新文献
Influence of preoperative variables on the 3-month functional outcomes of the Vivity extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens: a prospective case series. Real-world study of phakic refractive lens for correction of high myopia. Repeatability and reproducibility of a new spectral-domain optical coherence tomography biometer and agreement with swept-source optical coherence tomography based biometer. Topographic correlation of microperimetry with foveal microstructure characteristics in idiopathic epiretinal membrane patients with an ectopic inner foveal layer. Whole-genome sequencing identifies novel loci for keratoconus and facilitates risk stratification in a Han Chinese population.
×
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