[Functional outcomes of various aberrational extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses].

Q3 Medicine
A A Kasyanov, N Yu Shkolyarenko, F B Dudieva, T V Sharnina
{"title":"[Functional outcomes of various aberrational extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses].","authors":"A A Kasyanov, N Yu Shkolyarenko, F B Dudieva, T V Sharnina","doi":"10.17116/oftalma2024140061112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compares the functional outcomes of correction using two different types of aberrational extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The study was conducted in two standardized groups (20 patients, 20 eyes in each group). Patients in group 1 were implanted EDOF IOL I, in group 2 - EDOF IOL II. The main selection criterion was stable postoperative refraction close to emmetropia, with a minimum follow-up period of 3 months. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was chosen as the primary assessment criterion and was evaluated monocularly under photopic conditions at the following distances: at far, 66 cm, 50 cm, 40 cm, and 33 cm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The conducted analysis showed that both lenses provided a comparable high level of UCVA for distance vision in groups 1 and 2, with statistically insignificant differences (<i>p</i>=0.2538; <i>U</i>=160.52). Significantly better results at intermediate distances and at 50 cm were achieved in group 1 (<i>p</i>=0.0235; <i>U</i>=118.02 and <i>p</i>=0.0124; <i>U</i>=109.0, respectively). For the near distance of 40 cm, group 1 also demonstrated better outcomes, although the difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i>=0.0720; <i>U</i>=134.52). At the near distance of 33 cm, both groups achieved an expectedly similar level of UCVA, with no statistically significant difference (<i>p</i>=0.4656; <i>U</i>=173.52). No positive dysphotopsia was reported in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both EDOF IOLs demonstrated high clinical effectiveness. A significantly higher level of functional outcomes at intermediate distances was achieved with IOL I.</p>","PeriodicalId":23529,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik oftalmologii","volume":"140 6","pages":"112-117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik oftalmologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma2024140061112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study compares the functional outcomes of correction using two different types of aberrational extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Material and methods: The study was conducted in two standardized groups (20 patients, 20 eyes in each group). Patients in group 1 were implanted EDOF IOL I, in group 2 - EDOF IOL II. The main selection criterion was stable postoperative refraction close to emmetropia, with a minimum follow-up period of 3 months. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was chosen as the primary assessment criterion and was evaluated monocularly under photopic conditions at the following distances: at far, 66 cm, 50 cm, 40 cm, and 33 cm.

Results: The conducted analysis showed that both lenses provided a comparable high level of UCVA for distance vision in groups 1 and 2, with statistically insignificant differences (p=0.2538; U=160.52). Significantly better results at intermediate distances and at 50 cm were achieved in group 1 (p=0.0235; U=118.02 and p=0.0124; U=109.0, respectively). For the near distance of 40 cm, group 1 also demonstrated better outcomes, although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.0720; U=134.52). At the near distance of 33 cm, both groups achieved an expectedly similar level of UCVA, with no statistically significant difference (p=0.4656; U=173.52). No positive dysphotopsia was reported in either group.

Conclusion: Both EDOF IOLs demonstrated high clinical effectiveness. A significantly higher level of functional outcomes at intermediate distances was achieved with IOL I.

[各种畸变扩展焦深人工晶体的功能结果]。
目的:本研究比较了两种不同类型的像差扩展焦距人工晶状体(iol)矫正的功能结果。材料与方法:研究分为两个标准化组(20例患者,每组20只眼)。第1组采用EDOF IOL I,第2组采用EDOF IOL II。主要选择标准为术后屈光稳定,接近斜视,随访时间不少于3个月。选择未矫正视力(UCVA)作为主要评估标准,并在以下距离(远、66 cm、50 cm、40 cm和33 cm)下进行单眼光性评估。结果:进行的分析显示,两种镜片在1组和2组中提供了相当高水平的UCVA,差异无统计学意义(p=0.2538;U = 160.52)。第1组在中距离和50 cm处取得了明显更好的结果(p=0.0235;U=118.02, p=0.0124;分别为U = 109.0)。对于近40 cm的距离,1组疗效也较好,但差异无统计学意义(p=0.0720;U = 134.52)。在近距离33 cm处,两组的UCVA达到了预期的相似水平,差异无统计学意义(p=0.4656;U = 173.52)。两组均未见阳性的呼吸障碍。结论:两种EDOF人工晶体均具有较高的临床疗效。人工晶状体I在中距离处的功能结果明显更高。
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
Vestnik oftalmologii
Vestnik oftalmologii Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
129
期刊介绍: The journal publishes materials on the diagnosis and treatment of eye diseases, hygiene of vision, prevention of ophthalmic affections, history of Russian ophthalmology, organization of ophthalmological aid to the population, as well as the problems of special equipment. Original scientific articles and surveys on urgent problems of theory and practice of Russian and foreign ophthalmology are published. The journal contains book reviews on ophthalmology, information on the activities of ophthalmologists" scientific societies, chronicle of congresses and conferences.The journal is intended for ophthalmologists and scientific workers dealing with clinical problems of diseases of the eye and physiology of vision.
×
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