Comparison of clinical outcomes between different combinations of hybrid multifocal, extended-depth-of-focus and enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Bokyung Kim, Hyeck-Soo Son, Ramin Khoramnia, Gerd U Auffarth, Chul Young Choi
{"title":"Comparison of clinical outcomes between different combinations of hybrid multifocal, extended-depth-of-focus and enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses.","authors":"Bokyung Kim, Hyeck-Soo Son, Ramin Khoramnia, Gerd U Auffarth, Chul Young Choi","doi":"10.1136/bjo-2024-325181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of hybrid multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) versus mix-and-match implantation of hybrid multifocal and extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) versus mix-and-match implantation of hybrid multifocal and enhanced monofocal IOLs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with bilateral age-related cataract were randomised in one of three groups: group 1, bilateral hybrid multifocal IOL; group 2, EDOF in the dominant eye, hybrid multifocal in the non-dominant eye; group 3, enhanced monofocal in the dominant eye, hybrid multifocal in the non-dominant eye. Assessments at 6 months postoperatively included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA) and near distance (UNVA) at 40 and 33 cm, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity (CS), reading speed and questionnaires on quality of vision and dysphotopsia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>75 patients (25 per group) were enrolled. There were no statistically significant differences in binocular UDVA and UNVA between groups (p>0.05); binocular UIVA was better for group 1 and 2 versus group 3 (p=0.030). Binocular uncorrected defocus curve showed better performance for group 1 compared with group 3 from -2.00 to -3.50 D. Significantly higher reading speed was measured for Jaeger 1 font in group 1. There were no differences in CS between groups, but higher incidence of starbursts in group 1 and higher need for near spectacles in group 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bilateral hybrid multifocal IOL implantation resulted in better near vision, but higher rates of photic phenomena compared with the mix-and-match groups. Combinations of IOLs may allow surgeons to fine-tune for individual patient's needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9313,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2024-325181","RegionNum":2,"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

Abstract

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of hybrid multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) versus mix-and-match implantation of hybrid multifocal and extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) versus mix-and-match implantation of hybrid multifocal and enhanced monofocal IOLs.

Methods: Patients with bilateral age-related cataract were randomised in one of three groups: group 1, bilateral hybrid multifocal IOL; group 2, EDOF in the dominant eye, hybrid multifocal in the non-dominant eye; group 3, enhanced monofocal in the dominant eye, hybrid multifocal in the non-dominant eye. Assessments at 6 months postoperatively included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA) and near distance (UNVA) at 40 and 33 cm, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity (CS), reading speed and questionnaires on quality of vision and dysphotopsia.

Results: 75 patients (25 per group) were enrolled. There were no statistically significant differences in binocular UDVA and UNVA between groups (p>0.05); binocular UIVA was better for group 1 and 2 versus group 3 (p=0.030). Binocular uncorrected defocus curve showed better performance for group 1 compared with group 3 from -2.00 to -3.50 D. Significantly higher reading speed was measured for Jaeger 1 font in group 1. There were no differences in CS between groups, but higher incidence of starbursts in group 1 and higher need for near spectacles in group 3.

Conclusion: Bilateral hybrid multifocal IOL implantation resulted in better near vision, but higher rates of photic phenomena compared with the mix-and-match groups. Combinations of IOLs may allow surgeons to fine-tune for individual patient's needs.

混合多焦、扩大焦深和增强单焦人工晶状体不同组合的临床效果比较。
目的:比较双侧混合型多焦人工晶状体(iol)与混合型多焦扩展焦深度人工晶状体(EDOF)与混合型多焦增强单焦人工晶状体(iol)的临床效果。方法:双侧年龄相关性白内障患者随机分为三组:组1,双侧混合型多焦点人工晶状体;2组,优势眼EDOF,非优势眼混合型多焦;第三组,优势眼增强单焦点,非优势眼混合型多焦点。术后6个月评估单眼和双眼未矫正距离视力(UDVA)、40 cm和33 cm的中间距离(UIVA)和近距离(UNVA)、离焦曲线、对比敏感度(CS)、阅读速度以及视力质量和视力减退问卷。结果:75例患者(每组25例)入组。双眼UDVA、UNVA组间比较,差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05);1、2组双眼UIVA优于3组(p=0.030)。在-2.00 ~ -3.50 d范围内,组1的双眼未校正离焦曲线表现优于组3,组1的Jaeger 1字体的阅读速度显著提高。两组间CS无差异,但第1组的星暴发生率较高,第3组对近距离眼镜的需求较高。结论:双侧混合型多晶状体植入术近视力较混合型多晶状体植入术好,但光现象发生率高于混合型多晶状体植入术。人工晶状体的组合可以让外科医生根据个别病人的需要进行微调。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
213
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO) is an international peer-reviewed journal for ophthalmologists and visual science specialists. BJO publishes clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations related to ophthalmology. It also provides major reviews and also publishes manuscripts covering regional issues in a global context.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信