四种优质人工晶状体的视力、屈光和患者报告结果的比较评估。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Elinor Megiddo-Barnir, Mario Cantó-Cerdán, Ronald Steven Medalle, Antonio Martinez-Abad, Pilar Yebana-Rubio, Jorge L Alio, Francisco Cavas, Jorge L Alio Del Barrio
{"title":"四种优质人工晶状体的视力、屈光和患者报告结果的比较评估。","authors":"Elinor Megiddo-Barnir, Mario Cantó-Cerdán, Ronald Steven Medalle, Antonio Martinez-Abad, Pilar Yebana-Rubio, Jorge L Alio, Francisco Cavas, Jorge L Alio Del Barrio","doi":"10.1007/s10792-025-03777-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Compare visual, refractive, optical performance, and patient-reported measures in cases implanted with one premium IOL: Precizon Presbyopic NVA, AT Lisa Tri 839, Acrysof IQ Vivity, and TECNIS Eyhance ICB00.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective, comparative clinical study of 100 eyes of 100 patients: Visual acuity, refraction, slitlamp biomicroscopy, defocus curve, ocular aberrations, point spread function, pupil size, contrast sensitivity, and quality of vision were evaluated at 6 months. 79 eyes with Vivity were analyzed for correlations between postoperative near vision and preoperative/postoperative parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity for Precizon, Vivity, AT Lisa, and Eyhance were 0.04, 0.11, 0.02, and 0.07 logMAR, respectively. AT Lisa showed superior aberrometric performance and defocus curve with better near vision. Vivity had better retinal image quality and contrast, exceling in intermediate vision. Precizon excelled in near vision. Vivity had better Quality of vision scores; where 16% achieved uncorrected near vision ≤ 0.1, 72% > 0.1 to < 0.4, and 8% ≥ 0.4 logMAR, with no significant predictors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that the varied performance of premium IOLs may benefit from personalized selection based on patient goals and expectations. Differences in subjective visual quality highlight the need to manage expectations, particularly with EDOF lenses. However, conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":14473,"journal":{"name":"International Ophthalmology","volume":"45 1","pages":"389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative evaluation of visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes of four premium intraocular lenses.\",\"authors\":\"Elinor Megiddo-Barnir, Mario Cantó-Cerdán, Ronald Steven Medalle, Antonio Martinez-Abad, Pilar Yebana-Rubio, Jorge L Alio, Francisco Cavas, Jorge L Alio Del Barrio\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10792-025-03777-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Compare visual, refractive, optical performance, and patient-reported measures in cases implanted with one premium IOL: Precizon Presbyopic NVA, AT Lisa Tri 839, Acrysof IQ Vivity, and TECNIS Eyhance ICB00.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective, comparative clinical study of 100 eyes of 100 patients: Visual acuity, refraction, slitlamp biomicroscopy, defocus curve, ocular aberrations, point spread function, pupil size, contrast sensitivity, and quality of vision were evaluated at 6 months. 79 eyes with Vivity were analyzed for correlations between postoperative near vision and preoperative/postoperative parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity for Precizon, Vivity, AT Lisa, and Eyhance were 0.04, 0.11, 0.02, and 0.07 logMAR, respectively. AT Lisa showed superior aberrometric performance and defocus curve with better near vision. Vivity had better retinal image quality and contrast, exceling in intermediate vision. Precizon excelled in near vision. Vivity had better Quality of vision scores; where 16% achieved uncorrected near vision ≤ 0.1, 72% > 0.1 to < 0.4, and 8% ≥ 0.4 logMAR, with no significant predictors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that the varied performance of premium IOLs may benefit from personalized selection based on patient goals and expectations. Differences in subjective visual quality highlight the need to manage expectations, particularly with EDOF lenses. However, conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"389\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-025-03777-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-025-03777-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较一种优质IOL: Precizon Presbyopic NVA、AT Lisa Tri 839、acryysof IQ Vivity和TECNIS Eyhance ICB00植入病例的视力、屈光、光学性能和患者报告的测量结果。方法:对100例患者100只眼进行前瞻性对比临床研究,于6个月时评估视力、屈光、裂隙灯生物显微镜、离焦曲线、眼像差、点扩散函数、瞳孔大小、对比敏感度、视力质量。分析79只活体眼术后近视力与术前/术后参数的相关性。结果:precision、Vivity、AT Lisa、Eyhance术后未矫正距离视力分别为0.04、0.11、0.02、0.07 logMAR。AT Lisa具有较好的像差测量性能和离焦曲线,具有较好的近视力。Vivity有较好的视网膜图像质量和对比度,在中间视力方面表现优异。Precizon在近视力方面表现出色。活泼者的视力质量得分较高;结论:我们的研究结果表明,基于患者目标和期望的个性化选择可能会使优质iol的不同性能受益。主观视觉质量的差异突出了管理期望的必要性,特别是对于EDOF镜片。然而,由于方法学的局限性,结论应谨慎解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative evaluation of visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes of four premium intraocular lenses.

Purpose: Compare visual, refractive, optical performance, and patient-reported measures in cases implanted with one premium IOL: Precizon Presbyopic NVA, AT Lisa Tri 839, Acrysof IQ Vivity, and TECNIS Eyhance ICB00.

Methods: Prospective, comparative clinical study of 100 eyes of 100 patients: Visual acuity, refraction, slitlamp biomicroscopy, defocus curve, ocular aberrations, point spread function, pupil size, contrast sensitivity, and quality of vision were evaluated at 6 months. 79 eyes with Vivity were analyzed for correlations between postoperative near vision and preoperative/postoperative parameters.

Results: Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity for Precizon, Vivity, AT Lisa, and Eyhance were 0.04, 0.11, 0.02, and 0.07 logMAR, respectively. AT Lisa showed superior aberrometric performance and defocus curve with better near vision. Vivity had better retinal image quality and contrast, exceling in intermediate vision. Precizon excelled in near vision. Vivity had better Quality of vision scores; where 16% achieved uncorrected near vision ≤ 0.1, 72% > 0.1 to < 0.4, and 8% ≥ 0.4 logMAR, with no significant predictors.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the varied performance of premium IOLs may benefit from personalized selection based on patient goals and expectations. Differences in subjective visual quality highlight the need to manage expectations, particularly with EDOF lenses. However, conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations.

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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
451
期刊介绍: International Ophthalmology provides the clinician with articles on all the relevant subspecialties of ophthalmology, with a broad international scope. The emphasis is on presentation of the latest clinical research in the field. In addition, the journal includes regular sections devoted to new developments in technologies, products, and techniques.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信