目的探讨Acrysof IQ Restor Toric人工晶状体植入术前后患眼散光、像差及调制传递函数(modulation transfer function,MTF)值变化,评价此种晶状体对术眼视觉质量的影响。方法观察在我院行白内障超声乳化摘出联合IQ Restor Toric IOL植...目的探讨Acrysof IQ Restor Toric人工晶状体植入术前后患眼散光、像差及调制传递函数(modulation transfer function,MTF)值变化,评价此种晶状体对术眼视觉质量的影响。方法观察在我院行白内障超声乳化摘出联合IQ Restor Toric IOL植入的白内障合并角膜散光≥1.0 D的患者8例(10眼),分别于术前、术后1个月、3个月测量裸眼远中近视力、最佳矫正远近视力、等效球镜、残余散光及IOL轴位、总低阶像差和高阶像差、MTF值并问卷调查视觉满意度等。结果术后3个月,裸眼远视力为0.85±0.30,最佳矫正远视力为0.92±0.27,裸眼近视力为0.73±0.22,最佳矫正近视力为0.76±0.20,裸眼中视力为0.62±0.18;等效球镜度数≤±0.5 D者9眼(90%)。术后3个月全眼总散光由术前的(1.50±0.41)D降至(0.28±0.43)D(t=6.124,P=0.000),与术前预计残留散光(0.13±0.09)D相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后3个月,IOL轴位偏离(3.20±1.55)°。所有瞳孔直径下,总像差、低阶像差、高阶像差、球差与术前相比均有显著下降(均为P<0.05),术后3 mm瞳孔直径下的总像差、低阶像差和高阶像差(P=0.034、0.044、0.005)以及5 mm瞳孔直径下的总像差、低阶像差、散光像差(P=0.048、0.033、0.046)随时间推移仍有显著降低,余像差随时间变化虽有下降,但差异均无统计学意义(均为P>0.05)。不同瞳孔直径下,MTF值在各个空间频率下与术前相比均有显著提高(均为P<0.05)。结论 Acrysof IQ Restor Toric多焦点散光型人工晶状体能为白内障患者提供良好的全程视力和有效的散光矫正,减少了全眼高阶像差和球差,从而提高了患者的术后视觉质量。展开更多
目的:评价白内障患者超声乳化术中植入Acrysof IQ Restor多焦点Toric人工晶体矫正术前规则角膜散光的早期临床效果、安全性,以及术后人工晶状体眼的视功能状态。方法:搜集自2013年至今在我院行白内障超声乳化术并植入Acrysof IQ Restor...目的:评价白内障患者超声乳化术中植入Acrysof IQ Restor多焦点Toric人工晶体矫正术前规则角膜散光的早期临床效果、安全性,以及术后人工晶状体眼的视功能状态。方法:搜集自2013年至今在我院行白内障超声乳化术并植入Acrysof IQ Restor多焦点Toric人工晶状体的白内障患者18例(23眼)进行分析,术前患者散光均大于1.0 D。术后随访3个月,分别观察术后1周、1个月以及3个月的裸眼远视力,最佳矫正远视力以及裸眼近视力,术前散光以及术后3个月时残余散光、等效球镜度数和人工晶状体的旋转度。结果:术后3个月患者裸眼远视力0.89±0.21,最佳矫正远视力0.95±0.38,等效球镜为-0.5^+0.25D,裸眼近视力为0.82±0.19。术后3个月验光全眼散光为(0.38±0.15)D,较术前散光(1.79±0.43)D有明显降低(P<0.05)。术后3个月人工晶状体的轴位平均偏离(3.48±1.21)°。结论:Acrysof IQ Restor多焦点Toric人工晶状体为白内障患者提供了良好的术后全程视力和视觉质量,并校正了术前角膜散光,实现了患者高度满意率和脱镜率,可预测性好,并有良好的旋转稳定性。展开更多
目的:通过对非球面矫正型多焦点人工晶状体与非球面人工晶状体的比较,探讨白内障超声乳化联合非球面散光矫正型人工晶状体植入术后患者的远近视力、剩余散光、视远脱镜率、视近脱镜率、视觉质量和患者满意度等情况。方法:选取2014-02/20...目的:通过对非球面矫正型多焦点人工晶状体与非球面人工晶状体的比较,探讨白内障超声乳化联合非球面散光矫正型人工晶状体植入术后患者的远近视力、剩余散光、视远脱镜率、视近脱镜率、视觉质量和患者满意度等情况。方法:选取2014-02/2016-06在我院确诊为年龄相关性白内障的患者46例48眼,实行白内障超声乳化摘除联合人工晶状体植入术,分别植入AcrySof IQ ReSTOR Toric人工晶状体23例24眼作为试验组;AcrySof IQ人工晶状体23例24眼作为对照组。术后随访6mo,观察两组患者术后裸眼远视力(UCDVA)、最佳矫正远视力(BCDVA)、裸眼近视力(UCNVA)、最佳矫正近视力(BCNVA)、剩余散光和术后患者视远脱镜率、视近脱镜率、患者对手术疗效的满意度。结果:术后1、3、6mo两组患者最佳矫正远视力和最佳矫正近视力无统计学差异(P>0.05),而裸眼远视力、裸眼近视力均有统计学差异(P<0.05)。两组患者术后1wk,1、3、6mo的剩余散光差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),术后6mo时两组患者对疗效满意度差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后6mo视近视远脱镜率,试验组明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:非球面散光矫正型人工晶状体具有良好的近附加和散光矫正,可为患者提高良好的裸眼远视力和裸眼近视力,明显提高患者术后的脱镜率和对疗效的满意度,是白内障术后患者尤其是散光伴有明显视近阅读需求患者的福音。展开更多
Purpose: To compare the impact of induced astigmatism with four different types of multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs). Method: Prospective, comparative, interventional, mono-centered study, including 80 eyes of pat...Purpose: To compare the impact of induced astigmatism with four different types of multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs). Method: Prospective, comparative, interventional, mono-centered study, including 80 eyes of patients with implantation of four different MIOLs: AcrySof ReSTOR +2.5 D (20 eyes), AcrySof ReSTOR +3.0 D (20 eyes), AcrySof Panoptix (20 eyes) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA), and Tecnis Symfony ZRX00 (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, USA) (20 eyes). Patients were followed up for 3 months after surgery. Major parameters were uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, subjective refraction and patient satisfaction. Results: Differences between IOLs with regard to the impact of the cylinder sign and axis on visual acuity and patient satisfaction were not significant. With mild added negative cylinder, AcrySof ReSTOR +2.5 D and Tecnis Symfony IOLs maintained the baseline visual acuity, while it was mildly reduced with AcrySof ReSTOR +3.0 D and Panoptix IOLs. With moderate induced cylinder, the Tecnis Symfony IOL maintained good visual acuity and patient associated satisfaction. Panoptix IOL was the IOL most affected by the induced astigmatism with regard to dissatisfaction and visual acuity. The highest tolerance to the astigmatic distortion and blurriness induced with a -1.50 D cylinder was obtained with the Tecnis Symfony IOL. Tecnis Symfony IOL showed less dissatisfaction and less reduction of visual acuity than the other MIOLs. Conclusion: Simulated residual cylinders after the implantation of the Tecnis Symfony IOL up to 1.0 D have a very mild and not clinically relevant impact on visual acuity or patient satisfaction. The ERV IOL showed a better tolerance to unexpected postoperative residual errors than diffractive bifocal and trifocal IOLs.展开更多
文摘目的:评价白内障患者超声乳化术中植入Acrysof IQ Restor多焦点Toric人工晶体矫正术前规则角膜散光的早期临床效果、安全性,以及术后人工晶状体眼的视功能状态。方法:搜集自2013年至今在我院行白内障超声乳化术并植入Acrysof IQ Restor多焦点Toric人工晶状体的白内障患者18例(23眼)进行分析,术前患者散光均大于1.0 D。术后随访3个月,分别观察术后1周、1个月以及3个月的裸眼远视力,最佳矫正远视力以及裸眼近视力,术前散光以及术后3个月时残余散光、等效球镜度数和人工晶状体的旋转度。结果:术后3个月患者裸眼远视力0.89±0.21,最佳矫正远视力0.95±0.38,等效球镜为-0.5^+0.25D,裸眼近视力为0.82±0.19。术后3个月验光全眼散光为(0.38±0.15)D,较术前散光(1.79±0.43)D有明显降低(P<0.05)。术后3个月人工晶状体的轴位平均偏离(3.48±1.21)°。结论:Acrysof IQ Restor多焦点Toric人工晶状体为白内障患者提供了良好的术后全程视力和视觉质量,并校正了术前角膜散光,实现了患者高度满意率和脱镜率,可预测性好,并有良好的旋转稳定性。
文摘目的:通过对非球面矫正型多焦点人工晶状体与非球面人工晶状体的比较,探讨白内障超声乳化联合非球面散光矫正型人工晶状体植入术后患者的远近视力、剩余散光、视远脱镜率、视近脱镜率、视觉质量和患者满意度等情况。方法:选取2014-02/2016-06在我院确诊为年龄相关性白内障的患者46例48眼,实行白内障超声乳化摘除联合人工晶状体植入术,分别植入AcrySof IQ ReSTOR Toric人工晶状体23例24眼作为试验组;AcrySof IQ人工晶状体23例24眼作为对照组。术后随访6mo,观察两组患者术后裸眼远视力(UCDVA)、最佳矫正远视力(BCDVA)、裸眼近视力(UCNVA)、最佳矫正近视力(BCNVA)、剩余散光和术后患者视远脱镜率、视近脱镜率、患者对手术疗效的满意度。结果:术后1、3、6mo两组患者最佳矫正远视力和最佳矫正近视力无统计学差异(P>0.05),而裸眼远视力、裸眼近视力均有统计学差异(P<0.05)。两组患者术后1wk,1、3、6mo的剩余散光差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),术后6mo时两组患者对疗效满意度差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后6mo视近视远脱镜率,试验组明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:非球面散光矫正型人工晶状体具有良好的近附加和散光矫正,可为患者提高良好的裸眼远视力和裸眼近视力,明显提高患者术后的脱镜率和对疗效的满意度,是白内障术后患者尤其是散光伴有明显视近阅读需求患者的福音。
文摘Purpose: To compare the impact of induced astigmatism with four different types of multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs). Method: Prospective, comparative, interventional, mono-centered study, including 80 eyes of patients with implantation of four different MIOLs: AcrySof ReSTOR +2.5 D (20 eyes), AcrySof ReSTOR +3.0 D (20 eyes), AcrySof Panoptix (20 eyes) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA), and Tecnis Symfony ZRX00 (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, USA) (20 eyes). Patients were followed up for 3 months after surgery. Major parameters were uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, subjective refraction and patient satisfaction. Results: Differences between IOLs with regard to the impact of the cylinder sign and axis on visual acuity and patient satisfaction were not significant. With mild added negative cylinder, AcrySof ReSTOR +2.5 D and Tecnis Symfony IOLs maintained the baseline visual acuity, while it was mildly reduced with AcrySof ReSTOR +3.0 D and Panoptix IOLs. With moderate induced cylinder, the Tecnis Symfony IOL maintained good visual acuity and patient associated satisfaction. Panoptix IOL was the IOL most affected by the induced astigmatism with regard to dissatisfaction and visual acuity. The highest tolerance to the astigmatic distortion and blurriness induced with a -1.50 D cylinder was obtained with the Tecnis Symfony IOL. Tecnis Symfony IOL showed less dissatisfaction and less reduction of visual acuity than the other MIOLs. Conclusion: Simulated residual cylinders after the implantation of the Tecnis Symfony IOL up to 1.0 D have a very mild and not clinically relevant impact on visual acuity or patient satisfaction. The ERV IOL showed a better tolerance to unexpected postoperative residual errors than diffractive bifocal and trifocal IOLs.
