单焦点、波前形和衍射三焦点眼内透镜对扫描缝隙自动屈光度的影响。

IF 4.1 1区医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

American Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2024.09.019

LARISSA GOUVEA , SARA ALSHAKER , KAROLINNE MAIA ROCHA , WALLACE CHAMON , CLARA C. CHAN , DAVID S. ROOTMAN

{"title":"单焦点、波前形和衍射三焦点眼内透镜对扫描缝隙自动屈光度的影响。","authors":"LARISSA GOUVEA , SARA ALSHAKER , KAROLINNE MAIA ROCHA , WALLACE CHAMON , CLARA C. CHAN , DAVID S. ROOTMAN","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2024.09.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare scanning-slit retinoscopy automated refraction spherical equivalent (ARSE) to subjective manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) in normal eyes with four different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs).</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Retrospective cross-sectional study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 279 pseudophakic eyes that underwent lens extraction at a private center with implantation of either a wavefront shaped IOL (Acrysof® Vivity, DFT015), a nonapodized diffractive trifocal IOL (Acrysof® Panoptix), or a monofocal IOL with negative spherical aberration (Tecnis ZCBOO) or aberration-free (Envista Mx60E). Patients who had an automated refraction measurement with retinoscopy refractometer and aberrometer (NIDEK OPD Scan III, Nidek Technologies) and subjective refraction data 1-2 months postoperatively were included in the study. Main outcome measured was the difference between automated refraction and subjective refraction.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty-one eyes implanted with a DFT015 IOL, 78 eyes with a TFNT00 IOL, 40 with a ZCBOO IOL and 100 with a Mx60E IOL were enrolled in this study. Statistically significant myopic results were observed when using ARSE compared to MRSE in the DFT015 (-0.95 ± 0.64, -0.33 ± 0.65, <em>P</em> < .001), TFNT00 (-0.43 ± 0.36, -0.2 ± 0.35, <em>P</em> < .001), ZCBOO (-0.81 ± 0.63, -0.4 ± 0.69, <em>P</em> = .008) and Mx60E (-0.75 ± 0.65, -0.45 ± 0.52; <em>P</em> < .05) IOL groups. The absolute difference between the 2 methods was statistically significant in the DFT015 IOL group (0.65 ± 0.49; <em>P</em> < .05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Automated refraction yields myopic results in pseudophakic eyes with monofocal and presbyopia correcting IOLs and may be used with caution. Manifest refraction “push-plus” technique should be used in all pseudophakic eyes to avoid over-minus prescriptions, especially in patient with residual refractive error following cataract surgery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"269 ","pages":"Pages 450-456"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Monofocal, Wavefront-Shaped, and Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses on Scanning-Slit Automated Refraction\",\"authors\":\"LARISSA GOUVEA , SARA ALSHAKER , KAROLINNE MAIA ROCHA , WALLACE CHAMON , CLARA C. CHAN , DAVID S. ROOTMAN\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajo.2024.09.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare scanning-slit retinoscopy automated refraction spherical equivalent (ARSE) to subjective manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) in normal eyes with four different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs).</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Retrospective cross-sectional study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 279 pseudophakic eyes that underwent lens extraction at a private center with implantation of either a wavefront shaped IOL (Acrysof® Vivity, DFT015), a nonapodized diffractive trifocal IOL (Acrysof® Panoptix), or a monofocal IOL with negative spherical aberration (Tecnis ZCBOO) or aberration-free (Envista Mx60E). Patients who had an automated refraction measurement with retinoscopy refractometer and aberrometer (NIDEK OPD Scan III, Nidek Technologies) and subjective refraction data 1-2 months postoperatively were included in the study. Main outcome measured was the difference between automated refraction and subjective refraction.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty-one eyes implanted with a DFT015 IOL, 78 eyes with a TFNT00 IOL, 40 with a ZCBOO IOL and 100 with a Mx60E IOL were enrolled in this study. Statistically significant myopic results were observed when using ARSE compared to MRSE in the DFT015 (-0.95 ± 0.64, -0.33 ± 0.65, <em>P</em> < .001), TFNT00 (-0.43 ± 0.36, -0.2 ± 0.35, <em>P</em> < .001), ZCBOO (-0.81 ± 0.63, -0.4 ± 0.69, <em>P</em> = .008) and Mx60E (-0.75 ± 0.65, -0.45 ± 0.52; <em>P</em> < .05) IOL groups. The absolute difference between the 2 methods was statistically significant in the DFT015 IOL group (0.65 ± 0.49; <em>P</em> < .05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Automated refraction yields myopic results in pseudophakic eyes with monofocal and presbyopia correcting IOLs and may be used with caution. Manifest refraction “push-plus” technique should be used in all pseudophakic eyes to avoid over-minus prescriptions, especially in patient with residual refractive error following cataract surgery.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"269 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 450-456\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939424004392\",\"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":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939424004392","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

目的：比较扫描裂隙视网膜镜自动屈光球面等值（ARSE）与主观显像屈光球面等值（MRSE）在正常眼睛中与四种不同类型的眼内人工晶体（IOLs）的关系：设计：回顾性横断面研究方法：279 只假性角膜病眼在一家私立中心接受了晶状体摘除术，并植入了波前成形人工晶体（Acrysof® Vivity, DFT015）、非遮盖衍射型三焦点人工晶体（Acrysof® Panoptix）或负球差单焦点人工晶体（Tecnis ZCBOO）或无球差单焦点人工晶体（Envista Mx60E）。使用视网膜镜屈光仪和外差计（NIDEK OPD Scan III，Nidek Technologies）进行自动屈光度测量并获得术后 1-2 个月主观屈光度数据的患者均被纳入研究范围。测量的主要结果是自动屈光度与主观屈光度之间的差异：61只眼睛植入了DFT015人工晶体，78只眼睛植入了TFNT00人工晶体，40只眼睛植入了ZCBOO人工晶体，100只眼睛植入了Mx60E人工晶体。在 DFT015（-0.95±0.64，-0.33±0.65，p < .001）、TFNT00（-0.43±0.36，-0.2±0.35，p 结论：与 MRSE 相比，ARSE 的近视度数具有统计学意义：在使用单焦点和老花眼矫正 IOL 的假性近视眼中，自动屈光产生近视结果，应谨慎使用。所有假性近视患者都应使用显微屈光 "推加 "技术，以避免度数过低，尤其是白内障手术后有残余屈光不正的患者。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Effect of Monofocal, Wavefront-Shaped, and Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses on Scanning-Slit Automated Refraction

Purpose

To compare scanning-slit retinoscopy automated refraction spherical equivalent (ARSE) to subjective manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) in normal eyes with four different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Design

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

Methods

A total of 279 pseudophakic eyes that underwent lens extraction at a private center with implantation of either a wavefront shaped IOL (Acrysof® Vivity, DFT015), a nonapodized diffractive trifocal IOL (Acrysof® Panoptix), or a monofocal IOL with negative spherical aberration (Tecnis ZCBOO) or aberration-free (Envista Mx60E). Patients who had an automated refraction measurement with retinoscopy refractometer and aberrometer (NIDEK OPD Scan III, Nidek Technologies) and subjective refraction data 1-2 months postoperatively were included in the study. Main outcome measured was the difference between automated refraction and subjective refraction.

Results

Sixty-one eyes implanted with a DFT015 IOL, 78 eyes with a TFNT00 IOL, 40 with a ZCBOO IOL and 100 with a Mx60E IOL were enrolled in this study. Statistically significant myopic results were observed when using ARSE compared to MRSE in the DFT015 (-0.95 ± 0.64, -0.33 ± 0.65, P < .001), TFNT00 (-0.43 ± 0.36, -0.2 ± 0.35, P < .001), ZCBOO (-0.81 ± 0.63, -0.4 ± 0.69, P = .008) and Mx60E (-0.75 ± 0.65, -0.45 ± 0.52; P < .05) IOL groups. The absolute difference between the 2 methods was statistically significant in the DFT015 IOL group (0.65 ± 0.49; P < .05).

Conclusion

Automated refraction yields myopic results in pseudophakic eyes with monofocal and presbyopia correcting IOLs and may be used with caution. Manifest refraction “push-plus” technique should be used in all pseudophakic eyes to avoid over-minus prescriptions, especially in patient with residual refractive error following cataract surgery.

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

American Journal of Ophthalmology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

9.20

自引率

7.10%

发文量

406

审稿时长

36 days

期刊介绍： The American Journal of Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that welcomes the submission of original, previously unpublished manuscripts directed to ophthalmologists and visual science specialists describing clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations. Published monthly since 1884, the full text of the American Journal of Ophthalmology and supplementary material are also presented online at www.AJO.com and on ScienceDirect. The American Journal of Ophthalmology publishes Full-Length Articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Correspondences, Books Reports and Announcements. Brief Reports and Case Reports are no longer published. We recommend submitting Brief Reports and Case Reports to our companion publication, the American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports. Manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they have not been and will not be published elsewhere substantially in any format, and that there are no ethical problems with the content or data collection. Authors may be requested to produce the data upon which the manuscript is based and to answer expeditiously any questions about the manuscript or its authors.