首页> 外文期刊>Clinical ophthalmology >Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation
【24h】

Visual Outcomes, Visual Quality and Patient Satisfaction: Comparing a Blended Bifocal Approach to Bilateral Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation

机译:视觉结果,视觉质量和患者满意度:将混合的双焦点方法与双边扩展深度的聚焦眼透镜植入进行比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose: To compare visual outcomes, quality of vision and patient satisfaction between a blended apodized diffractive bifocal lens combination and bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL). Patients and methods: Subjects implanted with either the blended bifocal (Blended) or bilateral extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL combinations were examined 3 to 24 months after second eye surgery. The primary outcome measure was the patient’s best distance-corrected near visual acuity (VA) at 40cm. The secondary outcome measures were scores on the Quality of Vision Survey, the Catquest-9SF and the Visual Functioning Questionnaires, uncorrected binocular intermediate and near VA at 4–6m, 60cm and 40cm, the manifest refraction and the best-corrected monocular and binocular distance VA. Results: Twenty-five EDOF subjects and 23 blended subjects were analyzed. The uncorrected and best-distance corrected intermediate VA was statistically significantly better in the EDOF group (p 0.05); no other significant differences were noted at distance or near. The EDOF group had significantly higher percentage of patients having no difficulty with hobbies and handicrafts (p 0.05). Eighty-seven percent of the blended subjects and 79% of the EDOF subjects were “very” or “fairly” satisfied with their vision (p = 0.52). The frequency, severity and degree of bother from visual disturbances were comparable between the two groups; however, more subjects in the EDOF group reported severe disturbances (36% vs 4%). Conclusion: Distance and near VA are similar with both IOL designs, but intermediate VA was better with the EDOF IOL resulting in lower difficulty with intermediate tasks such as hobbies and handicrafts. Despite the difference at intermediate VA, satisfaction was similar between the two groups and there were greater reports of severe visual disturbances in the EDOF group.
机译:目的:比较视觉结果,在混合的减少的衍射双透镜组合和延长深度的聚焦眼透镜(IOL)之间的双侧植入之间的视觉结果,视觉质量和患者满意度。患者和方法:在第二次眼科手术后3至24个月内植入混合的双焦(混合)或双侧延伸深度(EDOF)IOL组合的受试者。主要结果措施是患者在40厘米的视力(VA)附近的最佳距离校正。次要结果措施是关于视觉调查质量,CatQuest-9SF和视觉作用问卷,未校正双目中间和4-6米,60厘米和40厘米,清单折射和最佳校正单眼和双目距离va。结果:分析了二十五个EDOF受试者和23个混合受试者。未校正和最佳距离校正的中间VA在EDOF组中统计学显着更好(P <0.05);在距离或附近没有注意其他显着差异。 EDOF组的患者没有困难的百分比较高,嗜好和手工艺品(P <0.05)。百分之八十七个混合科目和79%的EDOF受试者“非常”或“公平”对他们的视力满意(P = 0.52)。从视觉干扰之间的频率,严重程度和程度之间的损害程度与两组之间的相当相当;然而,在EDOF组中的更多主题报告了严重的干扰(36%vs 4%)。结论:距离和近VA与IOL设计类似,但使用EDOF IOL更好地为中间VA与中间任务等困难,如爱好和手工艺品。尽管中间VA有所不同,但两组之间的满意度相似,并且在EDOF组中存在对严重的视觉紊乱的报道。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号