个性化多焦点人工晶状体植入术的初步临床研究

目的 探讨超声乳化白内障吸除联合双眼分别植入衍射型与折射型多焦点人工晶状体(MIOL)术后的视觉质量,评价CustomMatch个性化搭配模式的可行性.方法 前瞻性研究.将年龄相笑性白内障患者分为MIOL组与单焦点人工晶状体(SIOL)组符10例,行超声乳化白内障吸除联合人工晶状体(IOL)植入术.MIOL组为主视眼植入ReZoom NXGl IOL,对侧眼植入Tecnis ZM900 IOL;SIOL组为同期双眼植入Sensar AR40e IOL.观察患者术后不同光照条件下的远、中、近距离视力、阅读视力和阅读速度、焦点深度以及问卷调查.采用析因设计的方差分析,两两比较采用ISD检验.结果 术后1个月观察发现,在100 cd/m~2和6 cd/m~2光照度下,MIOL组患者可获得满意的双眼裸眼远视力和最佳矫正远视力.100 cd/m~2时,MIOL组在40 cm、63 am和100 cm的裸眼视力均在0.63以上,显著高于SIOL组(P=0.000);6 cd/m~2时,MIOL组在100 cm时的双眼裸眼视力与SIOL组比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.360),在63 cm和40 cm时显著高于SIOL组(P=0.000).在明、暗光线下MIOL组患者的裸眼阅读视力和阅读速度显著高于SIOL组(P=0.000,0.000),与SIOL组矫正后的阅读能力比较,差异没有统计学意义.MIOL组的焦点深度可达5.5D,其在中、近距离工作和阅读时的脱镜率可达70%(7/10).结论 CustomMatch个性化搭配模式在一定范围内可给白内障术后患者提供良好的全程视力.     

折射型与衍射型多焦点IOL双眼联合植入后视觉质量的研究

目的:通过超声乳化白内障吸除联合双眼分别植入折射型多焦点人工晶状体(Rezoom NXG1 MIOL)与衍射型多焦点人工晶状体(ReSTOR SA60D3 MIOL),评价个性化搭配模式的术后视觉质量。方法:将拟行超声乳化白内障吸除术的年龄相关性白内障患者分为多焦点人工晶状体(MIOL)组与单焦点人工晶状体(SIOL)组,每组各10例。MIOL组为主视眼植入ReZoom NXGl MIOL,对侧眼植入ReSTOR SA60D3 MIOL;SIOL组为双眼植入Sensar AR40e IOL。术后1mo,观察两组患者远、中、近视力,对比敏感度,焦点深度及问卷调查,并对结果进行分析。结果:术后1mo,MIOL组患者获得满意的远视力,且中、近视力明显优于SIOL组。比较不同空间频率对比敏感度,除了暗光条件下,在3c/d空间频率SIOL组要优于MIOL组外,其余各空间频率两组无明显差别,而在明光条件下5种空间频率均未见明显差别。MIOL组的焦点深度可达5.30D,显著高于SIOL组的2.85D。MIOL组的中、近距离的视觉质量满意度也较SIOL组有明显的提高。结论:个性化搭配IOL能在一定范围内给白内障术后患者提供更好的全程视力,提高白内障患者术后视觉质量。     

双眼多焦点人工晶状体眼的远期立体视觉研究

目的比较双眼植入多焦点人工晶状体(MIOL)和单焦点人工晶状体(SIOL)植入术后远期的立体视觉,评价MIOL植入眼远期的立体视觉,进一步完善MIOL植入眼远期视功能的研究。方法观察2000年至2004年在我院接受白内障超声乳化吸除联合人工晶状体植入的患者共29例,其中双眼MIOL16例,双眼SIOL13例,术后随访时间>7m,分别检查术后非矫正近、远视力,矫正近、远视力,屈光,非矫正视力下远、近立体视锐度,矫正视力下远、近立体视锐度,问卷调查术后满意度、视觉症状。结果81.25%的MIOL眼非矫正近视力≥0.5,优于SIOL眼的15.38%(χ2=25.16,P<0.001,差异具有极显著性);非矫正远视力、矫正远视力及矫正近视力MIOL眼与SIOL眼差异无显著性(P>0.05);非矫正近视力下近立体视锐度,68.75%双眼植入MIOL者≤60s,而双眼植入SIOL者则无≤60s,两组间差异极具显著性(χ2=25.294,P<0.001);矫正近视力下近立体视锐度,93.75%的双眼植入MIOI者≤60s,相比双眼植入SIOL者的46.15%差异极具显著性(χ2=9.650,P=0.008,P<0.01);非矫正远视力下及矫正远视力下远立体视锐度,双眼植入MIOL组与双眼植入SIOL组间差异均无显著性;植入MIOL者术后满意度高于植入SIOL者(t=3.512,P=0.001,P<0.01)。结论术后远期,双眼MIOL植入者近立体视觉优于双眼SIOL植入者,植入MIOL患者满意度高于植入SIOL患者。     

双眼多焦点人工晶状体术后远期双眼视觉变化

目的探讨双眼植入多焦点人工晶状体(MIOL)后远期患者视觉质量的恢复情况。方法观察16例32眼植入MIOL的患者和13例26眼双眼植入单焦点人工晶状体(SIOL)的患者术后6个月以上视力、立体视觉和影像不等的改变,并进行问卷调查。结果MIOL眼远期近视力和矫正远视度数下的近视力明显较SIOL好;裸眼状态下MIOL组近立体视锐度明显优于SIOL组;两组患者均只有一例出现影像不等的现象;MIOL组脱镜率明显高于SIOL组。结论双眼植入MIOL可以获得满意的双眼视觉及正常的远近立体视锐度,明显提高患者的视觉质量。     

多焦点人工晶状体眼立体视锐度的研究

目的比较多焦点人工晶状体(MIOL)眼与单焦点人工晶状体(SIOL)植入术后患者的立体视锐度有无改变以评价多焦点人工晶状体植入的有效性及安全性。方法2000年9月～2001年12月我院住院的老年性白内障患者中选择合适的44例(60眼),随机分为两组,每组30眼,行晶状体超声乳化吸出术,MIOL组植入AMOArraySA40N,SIOL组植入Aller-ganSI40NB。术后1天查远、近视力,术后3月进行远、近视力及立体视锐度等视功能的检查,问卷调查视物情况及视觉症状。结果MIOL眼具有与SIOL眼一样良好的非矫正远视力(分别为1.00±0.27,0.89±0.23,P>0.05),MIOL眼非矫正近视力明显优于SIOL眼(分别为0.86±0.27,0.45±0.14,P<0.05);双眼植入MIOL者近立体视觉优于双眼植入SIOL者。结论MIOL植入安全而有效,可以提供与SIOL一样良好的远视力,而近视力及立体视觉更好。     

折射型多焦点人工晶状体与衍射型非球面多焦点人工晶状体术后视觉质量的临床分析

目的通过分别植入折射型多焦点人工晶状体（Rezoom MIOL）和衍射型非球面多焦点人工晶状体（Tecnis ZM900 MIOL）,观察植入术后的视力、对比敏感度、焦点深度及问卷调查,比较植入Rezoom MIOL和植入Tecnis ZM900 MIOL术后视觉质量。方法将52例（58只眼）拟行白内障超声乳化吸除术按照患者植入人工晶状体的不同分为两组：Rezoom组25例（28只眼）植入Rezoom MIOL,Tecnis组27例（30只眼）植入Tecnis ZM900 MI-OL,术后3个月,随访观察两组裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力、裸眼近视力、中间视力;并检查暗光条件下对比敏感度、焦点深度测量及问卷调查;对结果进行分析。结果术后3个月,两组最佳矫正远视力、裸眼远视力比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;近视力比较,Tecnis组优于Rezoom组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;63 cm中距离视力比较,Rezoom组优于Tecnis组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;暗光（3 cd/m2）背景光线;1.5、3、6、12、18 c/d五种空间频率对比敏感度比较,Tecnis组优于Rezoom组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。术后3个月Rezoom组的焦点深度为4.56 D,Tecnis组焦点深度为5.10 D;Tecnis组与ReZoom组比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论 Rezoom MIOL能提供较好的远、中距离视力;Tecnis ZM900 MIOL能提供较好的远、近视力。个性化的选择人工晶状体才能更好地提高术后视觉质量。     

两种类型人工晶状体植入术后远期患者视觉质量的研究

目的比较多焦点人工晶状体(multifocalintraocu-larlens,MIOL)和单焦点人工晶状体(monofocalintraocularlens,SIOL)植入术后患者远期视觉质量的改善情况,以进一步完善MIOL植入眼远期视功能的研究。方法观察2000~2004年在我院接受白内障超声乳化吸出联合人工晶状体植入术患者共69例98眼,其中双眼MIOL16例,双眼SIOL13例,单眼MIOL20例,单眼SIOL20例,术后随访时间>7月,分别检查术后非矫正近、远视力,矫正近、远视力,屈光,问卷调查术后满意度、视觉症状并对结果进行统计分析。结果90.38%(47/52)的MIOL眼非矫正近视力≥0.4,优于SIOL眼的21.74%(10/46)(χ2=53.174,P<0.01,差异具有极显著性);植入MIOL眼视近时屈光度明显小于植入SIOL眼(χ2=25.695,P=0.000<0.05,差异具显著性);非矫正远视力、矫正远视力及矫正近视力MIOL眼与SIOL眼差异无显著性(P>0·05);双眼植入MIOL组视近使用眼镜频率明显少于其他3组(t=9.774,P=0·000<0·01),双眼植入MIOL者术后满意度明显高于其他3组(t=3·637,P=0·001<0·01),双眼植入SIOL、单眼植入SIOL及单眼植入MIOL组之间使用眼镜频率及术后满意度之间无显著性差异。结论双眼植入MIOL后远期可获得较SIOL更好的视觉质量,但单眼植入MIOL则没有明显的优势。     

Tecnis MF和ReZoom两种人工晶状体的临床对比研究

目的:比较应用Tecnis MF和ReZoom两种多焦点人工晶状体植入术后1mo患者视力及对比敏感度(contrast sensitivity,CS)变化情况。方法:采用同期随机对照研究,选取年龄相关性白内障患者58例(74眼),随机分为两组,ReZoom IOL组(28例,28眼)植入人工晶状体ReZoom,Tecnis MFIOL组(30例,46眼)植入Tecnis MFIOL。术后第1mo检查矫正视力、无眩光及眩光环境下对比敏感度。结果:Tecnis MF近视力优于ReZoom(P<0.05),ReZoom中视力优于Tecnis MF(P<0.05),两者远视力无显著差异。Tecnis MF在空间频率为18c/d和24c/d时对比敏感度优于ReZoom(P<0.05)。两者眩光对比敏感度在各空间频率均无显著差异。结论:Tecnis MF及ReZoom在屈光晶状体手术中,对患者预后的影响各异,因此个性化使用Tecnis MF和ReZoom IOL为影响患者预后的关键环节。     

波前像差光路系统检测IOL倾斜和偏心对光学成像质量的影响

目的：通过波前像差光路系统探讨人工晶状体(IOL)偏心和倾斜对光学成像质量的影响。

方法：在5.0mm模拟瞳孔直径下,采用实验室搭建的Hartmann-Shack IOL波前像差光路系统检测球面IOL Sensar AR40e、非球面单焦点IOL Tecnis ZA9003、非球面多焦点 IOL Tecnis ZM900分别在偏中心0、0.2、0.4、0.6、0.8mm,向鼻侧和颞侧倾斜5°、10°、15°、20°、25°时对光学成像质量的影响,以高阶像差和调制传递函数(MTF)定量成像质量。

结果：倾斜5°以内时,Tecnis ZA9003 MTF值高于AR40e和Tecnis ZM900,而倾斜5°、10°、15°、20°时三种IOL MTF值有显著差异。Tecnis ZA9003 IOL倾斜角度与彗差呈显著正相关(r=0.842,P<0.001),与球面像差无显著相关性(r=0.229,P=0.241)。偏心0.6、0.8mm时三种IOL MTF值有显著差异(均P<0.001),Tecnis ZM900偏心大于0.4mm时成像质量明显下降。

结论：具有-0.27μm球差的非球面IOL倾斜度小于5°,偏心小于0.4mm时可获得比球面IOL更好的光学成像质量。Tecnis ZM900 IOL偏心大于0.4mm时较球面和非球面IOL的光学成像质量降低。     

晶状体超声乳化联合多焦点人工晶状体植入矫治高度近视疗效观察

目的 探讨透明晶状体超声乳化吸除联合多焦点人工晶状体植入术矫治高度近视的疗效.方法 对62例(90只眼)高度近视患者根据自愿原则,采用非随机对照方式分成两组,试验组32例(48只眼)植入Array SA40N多焦点人工晶状体(MIOL),对照组30例(42只眼)植入单焦点人工晶状体(SIOL),平均随访时间32个月,术后18个月查远近视力,立体视敏度,视野等视功能检查,问卷调查视觉症状及生活质量.结果 MIOL眼具有与SIOL眼一样良好的裸眼远视力(分别为0.89± 0.34,0.81± 0.22,P ＞0.05),裸眼近视力明显优于SIOL眼(分别为0.71± 0.20,0.39± 0.21,P ＜0.01),双眼植入MIOL近立体视觉优于双眼植入SIOL,多数患者对术后效果满意,脱镜率MIOL组53.1%,SIOL组无人能脱镜.术后未发生明显并发症.结论 透明晶状体超声乳化吸除联合多焦点人工晶状体植入术矫治高度近视安全、疗效明显,但高度近视患者术后阅读的脱镜率较低.     

Reading ability and stereoacuity with combined implantation of refractive and diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses

Purpose: To evaluate reading ability and stereoscopic vision with combined implantation of refractive and diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: Thirty‐one cataract patients (62 eyes) were assigned to receive either a ReZoom NXG1 IOL in the dominant eye and a Tecnis ZM900 IOL in the fellow eye (MIOL group), or Sensar AR40e IOLs bilaterally (SIOL group). The uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) at 500 cm, best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 500 cm, reading acuity, reading speed, near stereoacuity and questionnaire were assessed 3 months postoperatively. Results: Three months postoperatively, monocular and binocular UCVA and BSCVA at 500 cm showed no significant differences in both groups. The uncorrected reading acuity and reading speed in the MIOL group were significantly better than those in the SIOL group and were similar to that with correction in the SIOL group. The uncorrected mean near stereoacuity in the MIOL group was significantly better than that in the SIOL group (69 ± 50 seconds of arc in the MIOL group versus 180 ± 160 seconds of arc in the SIOL group). Patients in the MIOL group had a high level of satisfaction and more than 80% of them had an increased independence from spectacles for brief reading. Conclusion: The combined implantation of refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs was effective in improving reading ability and near stereoacuity with a good visual quality.     

Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE: To evaluate visual function of three types of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and one monofocal IOL (as the control group) after cataract surgery. METHODS: One hundred fourteen patients participated in a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study and received monofocal Tecnis Z9000 (AMO) (n = 24, 48 eyes); symmetric diffractive multifocal Tecnis ZM900 (AMO) (n = 26, 52 eyes); zonal refractive multifocal ReZoom (AMO) (n = 32, 64 eyes); and asymmetric diffractive multifocal TwinSet (Acri.Tec) (n = 32, 64 eyes) IOLs. RESULTS: Mean binocular distance best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) (logMAR) was 0.05 for controls, 0.08 for ZM900, 0.07 for ReZoom, and 0.11 for TwinSet, with mean binocular distance BSCVA at near of 0.49, 0.06, 0.22, and 0.11, respectively. Mean contrast sensitivity was better for the monofocal IOL group than for the multifocal IOLs. Patients assigned to TwinSet had less favorable contrast sensitivity scores. Patients with monofocal IOLs had more frequently recommended near addition (74%) than those with multifocal IOLs. Patients with refractive ReZoom had also recommended near addition more frequently than the two diffractive groups. The percentage of dysphotopsia phenomena was 81% in patients with diffractive multifocal ZM900 compared with 48% in patients with monofocal IOLs, 53% with refractive ReZoom, and 47% with diffractive TwinSet. CONCLUSIONS: The monofocal IOL showed better visual function and lesser photic phenomena than multifocal IOLs but patients were spectacle dependent. ReZoom provided better distance BSCVA than the TwinSet diffractive model. Patients with Tecnis and TwinSet diffractive multifocal IOLs were more spectacle independent than patients with ReZoom. Patients with TwinSet had the worst visual function. Patients implanted with the Tecnis diffractive ZM900 were those reporting more photic phenomena.     

Image quality with multifocal intraocular lenses and the effect of pupil size: comparison of refractive and hybrid refractive-diffractive designs

PURPOSE: To analyze the image quality with a refractive and 2 hybrid refractive-diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in vitro to determine the IOL modulation transfer function (MTF) following the EN-ISO international standard for distance and near vision and to study the IOLs' behavior with different pupil sizes. SETTING: Fundación Oftalmológica del Mediterráneo, Valencia, Spain. METHODS: This study evaluated 4 IOLs: the hybrid refractive-diffractive AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 (Alcon) and Tecnis ZM900 (AMO), the refractive ReZoom NXG (AMO), and the monofocal AcrySof SN60WF (Alcon). The MTF was calculated from the cross-line spread function recorded with the OPAL Vector System (Image Science Ltd.) using fast Fourier transform techniques. The artificial eye model simulated in vivo conditions of the anterior chamber and included an artificial cornea and physiological solution, in which the IOLs were positioned. The pupil sizes varied between 2.0 mm and 5.0 mm in steps of 0.5 mm. RESULTS: For distance vision and small pupils (2.0 to 3.5 mm), the refractive IOL provided better image quality than the 2 hybrid IOLs. When the pupil was larger, the distance vision was similar with all IOLs. The 2 hybrid IOLs gave better image quality than the refractive IOL for near vision with any pupil size. With the refractive IOL and pupils smaller than 3.5 mm, near focusing did not occur, resulting in poor image quality. Of the hybrid IOLs, the AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 provided better distance image quality and the Tecnis ZM900 provided better near image quality. CONCLUSIONS: The refractive IOL gave better image quality than the hybrid IOLs at distance and with small pupils. With pupils larger than 3.5 mm, the quality was similar. Hybrid IOLs gave significantly better image quality for near vision with all pupil sizes. AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 IOLs give better distance vision than Tecnis ZM900 IOLs; the latter gave better near vision. The reference monofocal IOL provided better distance images than any multifocal IOL with all pupil sizes.     

双眼植入Tecnis多焦点和单焦点球面人工晶状体的临床比较研究

目的 比较双眼植入Tecnis多焦点人工晶状体(IOL)与传统球面单焦点IOL对视觉功能的影响.方法 前瞻性临床研究.对100例(200只眼)患者实施超声乳化白内障吸除联合IOL植入术,采用随机数字表法随机植入前表面非球面和后表面衍射环的多焦点IOL(美国AMO公司Tecnis ZM900型;多焦点非球面组)与传统球面单焦点IOL(美国Bausch&Lomb公司Akreos Adapt型;单焦点球面组).随访3个月,检测两组IOL眼的5 m、1 m、63 cm、40 cm和30 cm各距离的裸眼视力和最佳远视力矫正下的近视力、调节幅度、全眼球差、对比敏感度、眩光敏感度以及近立体视锐度,并进行患者视功能和满意度问卷调查.对计量资料中两组数据进行正态性检验分析,满足正态分布的行t检验,不满足的行Mann-Whitney U检验,对计数资料行x2检验.结果 随访3个月后观察发现,30 cm和40cm距离多焦点非球面组的双眼远视力矫正下视力(logMAR视力)为0.24±0.12和0.22±0.11,明显优于单焦点球面组(Z=-8.261,P=0.000;Z=-5.508,P=0.000),其余各距离无明显差异;较之单焦点球面组,多焦点非球面组患者提高2.3～2.8 D的调节幅度(单眼Z=-10.655,P=0.000;双眼Z=-2.709,P=0.007);无论5 mm或3 mm瞳孔直径时多焦点非球面组的全眼球差[(0.027±0.160)μm,(0.006±0.083)μm]均小于单焦点球面组[(0.269±0.161)μm,(0.037±0.205)μm](Z=-8.815,P=0.000,Z=-2.791,P=0.005);两组的对比敏感度无明显差别,但单焦点球面组的眩光敏感度明显高于多焦点非球面组(P=0.0000);多焦点非球面组的裸眼近立体视锐度为(72.4±29.9)",优于单焦点球面组的(92.8±35.7)"(Z=-3.089,P=0.0002),近矫后近立体视锐度两组无统计学差异.结论 Tecnis多焦点非球面IOL较单焦点球面IOL可提供较好的近视力及调节幅度,提高近立体视锐度,非球面设计减少全眼球差,在一定程度上改善对比敏感度.     

Visualization of the retinal image in an eye model with spherical and aspheric, diffractive, and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To present a method that visually demonstrates how spherical, aspheric, diffractive, and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) process light received from the cornea. METHODS: Monochromatic green light was projected through an Average Cornea Eye (ACE) Model with a cornea in front of the IOL. The model simulates a human cornea with average spherical aberration and visualizes the converging bundle of light leaving the IOL. Additionally, a US Air Force target was projected through the model, and the projected (retinal) image was captured. Various IOLs of differing designs were evaluated using this test setup. Multifocal IOLs included the aspheric diffractive Tecnis ZM900 and ZMA00 lenses; the refractive ReZoom NXG1 lens; the spherical AcrySof ReSTOR SA60D3 apodized diffractive lens; and the spherical diffractive CeeOn 811E lens. Monofocal IOLs included the spherical CeeOnEdge 911A IOL and the aspheric SofPort LI61AO, AcrySof IQ SN60WF, and Tecnis Z9000 and ZA9003 IOLs. RESULTS: The light paths of the different diffractive and refractive multifocal IOLs showed the variations in the processing of incoming light, illustrating the functional differences of IOL concepts. The US Air Force target projections in the ACE Model gave an impression of the functional optical quality of the different lenses. The value of this visualization method was demonstrated by comparing the results with modulation transfer function measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This visualization technique furthers the understanding of the working principles and quality of the retinal images produced by different mono- and multifocal IOLs.     

Functional outcomes after implantation of Tecnis ZM900 and Array SA40 multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To evaluate the functional outcome after implantation of the Tecnis ZM900 multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (AMO) and the Array SA40 multifocal IOL (AMO). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Bundesknappschaft s Hospital, Sulzbach, and the Department of Ophthalmology, Marienhospital, Aachen, Germany. METHODS: In a prospective comparative 2-center trial, Tecnis ZM900 and the Array SA40 multifocal IOLs were bilaterally implanted in 50 patients (50 eyes Tecnis, 50 eyes Array) by 1 surgeon at each center. The following parameters were assessed 30 to 60 days and 120 to 180 days after surgery in both eyes: refraction, pupil size, uncorrected and best corrected visual acuities for distance and near at different contrast levels, and photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity at different spatial frequencies. Patient satisfaction (spectacle independence, photic phenomena, overall satisfaction) was assessed by a questionnaire. RESULTS: The main differences between the 2 multifocal IOLs were the better uncorrected near visual acuity (P<.001), distance-corrected near visual acuity (P<.001), the mesopic contrast sensitivity at high spatial frequencies (P<.05) as well as greater independence from spectacles in patients with the Tecnis multifocal IOL, resulting in higher levels of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The aspherical diffractive Tecnis multifocal IOL gave better outcomes than the Array multifocal IOL.     

Tecnis ZM900和Rezoom多焦点人工晶状体植入术后视功能比较

目的 比较Tecnis ZM900和Rezoom多焦点人工晶状体（MIOL）植入术后的视功能情况.方法 前瞻性对照研究.拟行白内障超声乳化吸除术患者36例（40眼）,年龄55～83岁.按照患者植入人工晶状体的不同分为两组：Tecnis组22例（25眼）,植入TecnisZM900 MIOL Rezoom组14例（15眼）,植入Rezoom MIOL.术后3个月,随访观察两组的屈光状态及最佳矫正远视力,远、中、近距离裸眼视力,并检查明、暗光条件下对比敏感度和球差.采用两样本t检验对结果进行分析.结果 术后3个月,两组最佳矫正远视力、裸眼远视力、100 cm中距离视力比较,Rezoom组优于Tecnis组（t=0.85、2.50、2.15,P＜0.05）.两组63 cm中距离视力和40 cm近视力比较,差异无统计学意义（t=1.55、0.45,P＞0.05）.33 cm近视力比较,Tecnis组优于Rezoom组（t=5.52,P＜0.05）.暗光条件下低频（3、6 c/d）对比敏感度比较,Tecnis组优于Rezoom组（t=2.15、3.01,P＜0.05） 而两组暗光下高频和明光下各空间频率对比敏感度比较,差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.在3、4、5 mm瞳孔直径下,Tecnis组全眼球差均低于Rezoom组,差异有统计学意义（t=2.16、2.28、4.00,P＜0.05）.结论 Rezoom MIOL能提供较好的远、中距离视力,近视力相对较差 Tecnis ZM900 MIOL能提供较好的远、近视力,中距离视力相对较差.相对于Rezoom MIOL,Tecnis ZM900 MIOL的非球面设计降低了全眼球差,改善了暗光大瞳孔下的低频区对比敏感度.