当代不同类型的多焦点IOL对昏暗条件下对比敏感度的影响

当代不同类型的多焦点IOL对昏暗条件下对比敏感度的影响
作者:Ana B. Plaza-Puche, Jorge L. Alio, Esperanza Sala, Peter Mojzis发表期刊:Eur J Ophthalmol

 

重点

⊙当代双焦点和三焦点IOL昏暗条件下的对比敏感度函数无统计意义的差异。

⊙三焦点IOL的第三个焦点对昏暗条件下的对比敏感度函数(LMCSF)无不利影响。

⊙单焦点IOL的昏暗条件下的对比敏感度函数(LMCSF)高于多焦点人工晶体。

AT LISA tri 839MP、FineVision、Lentis Mplus-LS313、Acri.Lisa 366D、Acrysof ReSTOR SN6AD1、monofocal IOL的昏暗条件下的对比敏感度函数(无统计意义差异) 

当代不同类型的多焦点IOL对昏暗条件下对比敏感度的影响

摘要
目的

探讨植入当代光学设计不同的双焦点和三焦点MFIOLs在昏暗条件下的对比敏感度函数(LMCSF)。

方法

该前瞻性非对照连续案例包括180只眼睛接受白内障手术。分成6组:A组:植入衍射型AT LISA tri 839MP;B组:植入衍射型FineVision;C组:植入双焦点Lentis Mplus-LS313;D植入双焦点Acri.Lisa 366D;E组植入衍射渐进Acrysof ReSTOR SN6AD1;F组作为对照组,植入单焦点球面IOL。术后3个月,使用OPTEC® 6500仪器在亮度为3 cd/m2时评估患者昏暗条件下的对比敏感度函数(LMCSF)。

结果

各组的昏暗条件下对比敏感度函数(LMCSF)在空间频率为1.5,3.0,6.0和12.0 cpd无统计意义上的差别(1.5 cpd: F = 1.81, p = 0.13; 3.0 cpd: F = 1.14, p = 0.14; 6.0 cpd: F = 1.87, p = 0.11; 12.0 cpd: F = 1.26, p = 0.29),但各组在空间频率为18 cpd时有显著统计意义上的差别(F = 2.62, p = 0.03)。当组间进行两两比较时,仅在E组与F组的比较中具有显著的统计意义上差异(t = 3.27, p = 0.03),即E组低于F组。

结论

对于不同的多焦点IOL研究中LMCSF无显著统计意义上差异。三焦点IOL的第三个焦点对LMCSF并没有不利影响。与对照组相比,在较高的空间频率时,ReSTOR SN6AD1具有最差的LMCSF。

 

Impact of low mesopic contrast sensitivity outcomes in different types of modern multifocal intraocular lenses
Author:Ana B. Plaza-Puche, Jorge L. Alio, Esperanza Sala, Peter MojzisJournal:Eur J Ophthalmol

 

Highlights

⊙No differences in LMCSF among all modern bifocal and trifocal IOL.

⊙The third focus of trifocal IOL models did not adversely affect the LMCSF.

⊙The monofocal IOL control used in this investigation provided better LMCSF than all the mfIOLs.

 

ABSTRACT
Purpose

To investigate the low mesopic contrast sensitivity function (LMCSF) of patients implanted with different modern optical bifocal and trifocal designs of multifocal intraocular lenses (mfIOLs).

Methods

This prospective, comparative, nonrandomized consecutive case series included 180 eyes that underwent cataract surgery. Six groups of eyes were differentiated: group A, eyes with the diffractive AT LISA tri 839MP; group B, eyes with diffractive FineVision; group C, eyes with the bifocal Lentis Mplus-LS313; group D, eyes with the diffractive bifocal Acri.Lisa 366D; group E, eyes with the diffractive apodized Acrysof ReSTOR SN6AD1; group F, as the control group, implanted with a monofocal spherical intraocular lens. The LMCSF was evaluated with the OPTEC® 6500 device at 3 months postoperatively using a luminance of 3 cd/m2.

Results

No significant differences among groups were detected in LMCSF for the spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 cpd (1.5 cpd: F = 1.81, p = 0.13; 3.0 cpd: F = 1.14, p = 0.14; 6.0 cpd: F = 1.87, p = 0.11; 12.0 cpd: F = 1.26, p = 0.29), but significant differences were found among groups for the spatial frequency of 18 cpd (F = 2.62, p = 0.03). When comparing the groups in pairs, only statistically significant differences were observed between groups E and F for the spatial frequency of 18.0 cpd (t = 3.27, p = 0.03) with better values for group F.

Conclusion

No significant differences were observed in LMCSF among the different mfIOLs studied. The third focus of trifocal IOL models did not adversely affect the LMCSF. The ReSTOR SN6AD1 showed the poorest LMCSF for the highest spatial frequency analyzed when compared with the control group.

当代不同类型的多焦点IOL对昏暗条件下对比敏感度的影响

 

来源:蔡司三焦点

沪公网安备 31011002004103号