原发性超声乳化术中单焦与多焦治疗老花眼:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Eye Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1038/s41433-024-03454-x
Ashley Shuen Ying Hong, Eric Jin, Liang Shen, David Z Chen
{"title":"原发性超声乳化术中单焦与多焦治疗老花眼:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Ashley Shuen Ying Hong, Eric Jin, Liang Shen, David Z Chen","doi":"10.1038/s41433-024-03454-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) focuses on comparing monovision and bilateral multifocal lenses (bMFIOL) implantation methods in treating presbyopia, a common age-related condition often seen in post-cataract surgery patients. This review focuses on evaluating the efficacy, user satisfaction and limitations of these two approaches through direct or indirect comparison. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library, considering studies up to 15 July 2022, with direct or indirect comparisons between any monovision and bMFIOL implantation with bilateral cataract surgery. The study protocol has been published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42022340257). Thirty-two studies (3082 patients) were included in the NMA for the primary outcome, complete post-operative spectacle independence. NMA showed monovision to be inferior to bMFIOLs, as bMFIOL was more likely to provide complete spectacle independence (RR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.34 to 3.15, p = 0.002) compared to monovision. Monovision resulted in less glare compared to bMFIOL (RR = 0.343, 95% CI = 0.181 to 0.651, p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between monovision and bMFIOL for binocular unadjusted distance visual acuity (MD = 70.01, 95% CI = -19.88 to 4.60, p = 0.437) and binocular unadjusted near visual acuity (MD = 5.46, 95% CI = -5.24 to 10.94, p = 0.191). When compared to monovision, bMFIOL provided greater complete spectacle independence at the expense of greater glare. This study was limited by data heterogeneity, and further studies with standardized reporting would be useful.</p>","PeriodicalId":12125,"journal":{"name":"Eye","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monovision versus multifocality for presbyopia during primary phacoemulsification: systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ashley Shuen Ying Hong, Eric Jin, Liang Shen, David Z Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41433-024-03454-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) focuses on comparing monovision and bilateral multifocal lenses (bMFIOL) implantation methods in treating presbyopia, a common age-related condition often seen in post-cataract surgery patients. This review focuses on evaluating the efficacy, user satisfaction and limitations of these two approaches through direct or indirect comparison. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library, considering studies up to 15 July 2022, with direct or indirect comparisons between any monovision and bMFIOL implantation with bilateral cataract surgery. The study protocol has been published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42022340257). Thirty-two studies (3082 patients) were included in the NMA for the primary outcome, complete post-operative spectacle independence. NMA showed monovision to be inferior to bMFIOLs, as bMFIOL was more likely to provide complete spectacle independence (RR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.34 to 3.15, p = 0.002) compared to monovision. Monovision resulted in less glare compared to bMFIOL (RR = 0.343, 95% CI = 0.181 to 0.651, p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between monovision and bMFIOL for binocular unadjusted distance visual acuity (MD = 70.01, 95% CI = -19.88 to 4.60, p = 0.437) and binocular unadjusted near visual acuity (MD = 5.46, 95% CI = -5.24 to 10.94, p = 0.191). When compared to monovision, bMFIOL provided greater complete spectacle independence at the expense of greater glare. This study was limited by data heterogeneity, and further studies with standardized reporting would be useful.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eye\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eye\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03454-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03454-x","RegionNum":3,"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

本系统性综述和网络荟萃分析 (NMA) 的重点是比较单眼和双侧多焦点镜片 (bMFIOL) 在治疗老花眼方面的植入方法,老花眼是一种常见的与年龄相关的疾病,经常出现在白内障手术后的患者身上。本综述主要通过直接或间接比较来评估这两种方法的疗效、用户满意度和局限性。我们在 Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了全面检索,考虑了截至 2022 年 7 月 15 日的研究,这些研究直接或间接比较了任何单眼人工晶体植入术和 bMFIOL 植入术与双侧白内障手术。研究方案已在《国际系统回顾前瞻性注册》(PROSPERO,CRD42022340257)中公布。有 32 项研究(3082 名患者)被纳入了主要结果(术后完全独立配戴眼镜)的 NMA。NMA 结果显示,单眼视力不如双目人工晶体,因为与单眼视力相比,双目人工晶体更有可能实现完全眼镜独立(RR = 2.06,95% CI = 1.34 至 3.15,p = 0.002)。与 bMFIOL 相比,单眼视力更不容易产生眩光(RR = 0.343,95% CI = 0.181 至 0.651,p = 0.001)。在双眼未调整远视力(MD = 70.01,95% CI = -19.88 至 4.60,p = 0.437)和双眼未调整近视力(MD = 5.46,95% CI = -5.24 至 10.94,p = 0.191)方面,单眼视力与双目全视力的差异无统计学意义。与单眼视力相比,bMFIOL 提供了更大的完全眼镜独立性,但代价是更强的眩光。这项研究受到数据异质性的限制,进一步开展标准化报告的研究将非常有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Monovision versus multifocality for presbyopia during primary phacoemulsification: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) focuses on comparing monovision and bilateral multifocal lenses (bMFIOL) implantation methods in treating presbyopia, a common age-related condition often seen in post-cataract surgery patients. This review focuses on evaluating the efficacy, user satisfaction and limitations of these two approaches through direct or indirect comparison. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library, considering studies up to 15 July 2022, with direct or indirect comparisons between any monovision and bMFIOL implantation with bilateral cataract surgery. The study protocol has been published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42022340257). Thirty-two studies (3082 patients) were included in the NMA for the primary outcome, complete post-operative spectacle independence. NMA showed monovision to be inferior to bMFIOLs, as bMFIOL was more likely to provide complete spectacle independence (RR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.34 to 3.15, p = 0.002) compared to monovision. Monovision resulted in less glare compared to bMFIOL (RR = 0.343, 95% CI = 0.181 to 0.651, p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between monovision and bMFIOL for binocular unadjusted distance visual acuity (MD = 70.01, 95% CI = -19.88 to 4.60, p = 0.437) and binocular unadjusted near visual acuity (MD = 5.46, 95% CI = -5.24 to 10.94, p = 0.191). When compared to monovision, bMFIOL provided greater complete spectacle independence at the expense of greater glare. This study was limited by data heterogeneity, and further studies with standardized reporting would be useful.

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
Eye
Eye 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
481
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Eye seeks to provide the international practising ophthalmologist with high quality articles, of academic rigour, on the latest global clinical and laboratory based research. Its core aim is to advance the science and practice of ophthalmology with the latest clinical- and scientific-based research. Whilst principally aimed at the practising clinician, the journal contains material of interest to a wider readership including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science worldwide. Eye is the official journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Eye encourages the submission of original articles covering all aspects of ophthalmology including: external eye disease; oculo-plastic surgery; orbital and lacrimal disease; ocular surface and corneal disorders; paediatric ophthalmology and strabismus; glaucoma; medical and surgical retina; neuro-ophthalmology; cataract and refractive surgery; ocular oncology; ophthalmic pathology; ophthalmic genetics.
×
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