散光矫正型多焦点人工晶状体植入术后临床效果

评价白内障超声乳化联合散光矫正型多焦点人工晶状体（MIOL）植入术后患者的长期临床效果。方法：前瞻性自身前后对照研究。选择在大庆油田总医院行白内障超声乳化联合散光矫正型多焦点IOL植入术患者50例（82眼），术后随访1年，分别观察术前，术后3个月、6个月、1年的裸眼远中近视力（LogMAR）、最佳矫正远中近视力（LogMAR）、离焦曲线、对比敏感度（CS）、全眼像差、预计残留散光和IOL轴位偏差分析及脱镜率。对手术前后各参数进行重复测量的方差分析，两两比较采用Bonferroni法及t检验。结果：散光矫正型MIOL植入术后，所有患者术后3个月、6个月、1年时远、中、近距离均可获得优于0.3的较好视力。术后3个月、6个月、1年时各距离视力较术前显著提高（远距离：F=26.39，P<0.001；中距离：F=13.68，P<0.001；近距离：F=12.90，P<0.001）。矫正远距离视力较裸眼视力略有提高，但差异无统计学意义，矫正前后近距离视力差异无统计学意义。术后6个月时，所有患者裸眼远视力接近0.0，且-4.0～+1.2 D离焦下视力均可优于0.3 LogMAR。术后 1年时明视带眩光CS最好，明视、暗视的CS比明视眩光有所下降，暗视眩光分辨率最差，而在高频区（18 c/d），CS随时间推移有显著提高，差异有统计学意义。术后1年全眼总散光（0.24±0.15）D，与术前[（1.56±0.38）D]相比，差异有统计学意义（t=3.31，P=0.023）。术后全眼总散光与术前预计残留散光[（0.15±0.07）D]接近，差异无统计学意义（t=2.31，P=0.102）。术后1年，IOL轴位平均偏离（3.12±1.51）°。术后脱镜率为100%。结论：散光矫正型MIOL能为白内障患者提供满意的全程视力、视觉质量和脱镜率，可预测性好，并有良好的旋转稳定性。     

非球面散光矫正型多焦点人工晶状体植入术对白内障患者视力和对比敏感度的影响

目的：观察非球面散光矫正型多焦点人工晶状体植入术对白内障患者视力和对比敏感度的影响。
　　方法：将我院2014-05/2015-05期间行超声乳化人工晶状体植入术的合并有角膜规则散光的白内障患者58例72眼,随机分为两组：观察组植入散光矫正型多焦点人工晶状体29例36眼;对照组植入散光型单焦点人工晶状体29例36眼。术后随访1、6mo,观察术后患者的裸眼远视力(UCDVA)、裸眼近视力(UCNVA)、最佳矫正远视力(BCDVA)、最佳矫正近视力(BCNVA)、残余散光、暗光下对比敏感度。
　　结果：两组术后1、6mo UCDVA、BCNVA、BCDVA 以及残余散光的比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组术后1、6mo 的 UCNVA 优于对照组(P<0.05);术后6mo 两组对比敏感度在高空间频率比较上差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
　　结论：非球面散光矫正型多焦点人工晶状体植入术治疗合并有角膜规则散光的白内障患者疗效确切,与散光型单焦点人工晶状体植入术比较均可改善患眼视力,且采用非球面散光矫正型多焦点人工晶状体植入术治疗后可获得更好的裸眼近视力和对比敏感度。     

多焦点散光型与单焦点散光型人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量对比

目的 比较多焦点散光型人工晶状体（IOL）和单焦点散光型IOL植入术后的视觉质量。方法 回顾性非随机对照研究。角膜散光大于1.0 D的白内障患者27例（32眼）,其中8例（10眼）植入非球面多焦点散光型IOL（Acrysof IQ Restor toric IOL,SND1T,SND1T组）,19例（22眼）植入非球面单焦点散光型IOL（Acrysof IQ toric IOL,SN6AT,SN6AT组）纳入本研究。术后1、3、6个月观察2组远近裸眼视力（UCVA）、最佳矫正视力（BCVA）,残余散光,IOL旋转度,对比敏感度,调制传递函数（MTF）以及全眼波前像差等。采用独立样本t检验及重复测量方差分析对数据进行分析。结果 术后各时间点,SND1T组近UCVA均明显优于SN6AT组（t=11.683、8.252、7.384,P<0.01）;术后6个月,SND1T组在有眩光低空间频率（3 c/d）的对比敏感度低于SN6AT组（t=2.086,P<0.05）,其余空间频率差异无统计学意义;3 mm瞳孔下,SND1T组在低空间频率（5、10 c/d）的MTF值低于SN6AT组（t=2.050、2.078,P<0.05）,其余空间频率差异无统计学意义。术后各时间点,2组间远UCVA、远近BCVA差异均无统计学意义;术后6个月,2组间术前术后角膜散光差值、IOL旋转度差异均无统计学意义;2组在无眩光所有空间频率的对比敏感度、5 mm瞳孔下各空间频率的MTF值以及3 mm和5 mm瞳孔下的全眼总像差、总高阶像差、球差、彗差的差异均无统计学意义。结论 与单焦点散光型IOL相比,多焦点散光型IOL可获得良好的全程视力,并能有效矫正散光,同时提供理想的视觉质量。     

非球面散光矫正型多焦点人工晶状体在白内障中的临床观察

目的:通过对非球面矫正型多焦点人工晶状体与非球面人工晶状体的比较,探讨白内障超声乳化联合非球面散光矫正型人工晶状体植入术后患者的远近视力、剩余散光、视远脱镜率、视近脱镜率、视觉质量和患者满意度等情况.方法:选取2014-02/2016-06在我院确诊为年龄相关性白内障的患者46例48眼,实行白内障超声乳化摘除联合人工晶状体植入术,分别植入AcrySof IQ ReSTOR Toric人工晶状体23例24眼作为试验组;AcrySof IQ 人工晶状体23例24眼作为对照组.术后随访6mo,观察两组患者术后裸眼远视力(UCDVA)、最佳矫正远视力(BCDVA)、裸眼近视力(UCNVA)、最佳矫正近视力(BCNVA)、剩余散光和术后患者视远脱镜率、视近脱镜率、患者对手术疗效的满意度.结果:术后1、3、6mo两组患者最佳矫正远视力和最佳矫正近视力无统计学差异(P>0.05),而裸眼远视力、裸眼近视力均有统计学差异(P<0.05).两组患者术后1wk,1、3、6mo的剩余散光差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),术后6mo时两组患者对疗效满意度差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后6mo视近视远脱镜率,试验组明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论:非球面散光矫正型人工晶状体具有良好的近附加和散光矫正,可为患者提高良好的裸眼远视力和裸眼近视力,明显提高患者术后的脱镜率和对疗效的满意度,是白内障术后患者尤其是散光伴有明显视近阅读需求患者的福音.     

三焦点与单焦点人工晶状体植入术效果的比较

目的：观察并比较AT LISA tri 839MP三焦点人工晶状体及CT SPHERIS 209M单焦点人工晶状体植入术后白内障患者的视力、对比敏感度和视觉质量。

方法：行白内障超声乳化摘除联合人工晶状体植入术的患者52例52眼,其中三焦点组26例26眼,术中植入AT LISA tri 839MP三焦点人工晶状体; 单焦点组26例26眼,术中植入CT SPHERIS 209M单焦点人工晶状体。术后3mo检查患者的裸眼远距离视力(UCDVA)、裸眼中距离视力(UCIVA)、裸眼近距离视力(UCNVA)、最佳矫正远视力(BCDVA)、远视力矫正下的中距离视力(DCIVA)、远视力矫正下的近距离视力(DCNVA),明、暗环境中不同空间频率(3、6、12、18c/d)下的对比敏感度,并进行脱镜率、不良视觉症状和满意度等问卷调查。

结果：术后3mo三焦点组UCIVA、UCNVA、DCIVA和DCNVA、脱镜率及满意度均优于单焦点组(P<0.05)。在暗环境中的18c/d空间频率,单焦点组的对比敏感度优于三焦点组(P=0.041)。两组均有轻度眩光和光晕不适主诉(P=0.668)。

结论：AT LISA tri 839MP三焦点人工晶状体较CT SPHERIS 209M单焦点人工晶状体为患者提供了更好的中、近视力,脱镜率和满意度均高于单焦点人工晶状体。     

ReSTOR+3D多焦点人工晶状体临床效果观察

目的：观察ReSTOR+3D多焦点人工晶状体的临床效果。 方法：选取40例80眼年龄相关性白内障患者,按同一标准分为两组,其中双眼非同期植入ReSTOR+3D多焦点人工晶状体者20例设为MIOL组;双眼非同期植入蓝光滤过型单焦点人工晶状体者20例设为SIOL组。均行透明角膜切口超声乳化白内障摘除联合人工晶状体植入术。术后1d观察术眼的裸眼远、近视力;术后1mo观察术眼的裸眼远、近视力,矫正远、近视力,最佳远矫下近视力,对比敏感度,问卷调查视觉质量、各视觉功能区满意度及脱镜率。 结果：两组患者术后均有良好的远视力;MIOL 组患者同时获得良好的近、中程视力。术后对比敏感度MIOL组较SIOL组有所下降,但无功能性意义。MIOL 组视近脱镜率85%。 结论：ReSTOR+3D多焦点人工晶状体植入可为患者提供良好的全程视力,安全有效,满意度高。     

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。     

多焦点人工晶状体植入术后远期疗效的观察

目的:比较以Array(AMO)为代表的多焦点人工晶状体与以AcrySof(Alcon)为代表的单焦点人工晶状体术后远期视力及对比敏感度的改变,以评价多焦点人工晶状体的有效性和安全性。方法:多焦点人工晶状体组15例30只眼,单焦点人工晶状体组15例30只眼,随访时间均为术后3个月以上;随访时均检查视力、矫正视力及最佳矫正视力下的对比敏感度。结果:多焦点人工晶状体组的矫正远视力和矫正近视力与单焦点人工晶状体组者均无明显差异(P>0.05),非矫正远视力、非矫正近视力优于单焦点人工晶状体组,两者间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在昼视、昼光、暗视、暗光下,多焦点人工晶状体组3周/度(cycleperdegree,CPD)、6CPD、12CPD频率段的对比敏感度值与单焦点人工晶状体组者均无明显差异(P>0.05),在昼视状态下18CPD频率段的对比敏感度值较单焦点人工晶状体降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:植入多焦点人工晶状体者术后远期较单焦点人工晶状体者能提供良好的远近视力,且对比敏感度值仅在高频率段低于单焦点人工晶状体。     

多焦点与单焦点人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的临床研究

目的:评价多焦点人工晶状体与单焦点人工晶状体植入术后患者的视觉质量。方法:前瞻性研究2018年11月至2019年10月在山西省眼科医院就诊的年龄相关性白内障62例(102只眼),患者随机分为两组：多焦点组,40例(66只眼),植入SN6AD1阶梯渐进性衍射非球面多焦点人工晶状体;单焦点组,22例(36只眼),植入SN6...     

双焦点及散光双焦点人工晶状体混搭植入术后双眼视觉质量的研究

目的：研究散光矫正型双焦点人工晶状体与双焦点人工晶状体混搭植入术后的双眼视觉质量。

方法：横断面研究。纳入2020-01/2021-01收治的年龄相关性白内障患者54例108眼,按植入人工晶状体及术前角膜散光不同分为3组,A组21例42眼术前角膜散光均<1.0D,双眼植入双焦点人工晶状体; B组15例30眼术前角膜散光均≥1.0D,双眼植入散光双焦点人工晶状体; C组18例36眼,一眼术前角膜散光<1.0D,另一眼术前角膜散光≥1.0D,前者植入双焦点人工晶状体,后者植入散光双焦点人工晶状体。比较三组患者术前单眼视力,术后双眼视力、残余散光、双眼离焦曲线、对比敏感度(CS),三组患者术后进行问卷调查评估视觉质量。

结果：三组患者术前视力、术前眼压均无差异(P>0.05)。A组术后残余散光显著高于另两组(P=0.012,<0.05)。B组和C组双眼远视力优于A组(均P<0.05); B组和C组双眼近视力优于A组(均P<0.01); A组双眼中视力优于B组和C组(均P<0.01)。明视眩光6、12c/d,暗视6、12、18c/d,以及暗视眩光1.5、3、6、12、18c/d的空间频率下A组CS较B组和C组显著降低(均P<0.05)。术后视功能调查表三组间无差异(P>0.05)。

结论：散光双焦人工晶状体与双焦人工晶状体混搭植入可改善患者术后视觉质量。矫正散光有助于提高术后患者的视觉CS,但是散光全矫后,可能会导致患者术后中视力的下降。     

Visual outcomes and optical quality after implantation of a diffractive multifocal toric intraocular lens

Background:This study evaluated the visual function after implantation of a multifocal toric intraocular lenses (IOLs).Results:At 6 months postoperatively, uncorrected distance visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) was 0.09 ± 0.04, corrected distance visual acuity was 0.02 ± 0.11, and uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.12 ± 0.07. The mean SE was −0.095 ± 0.394 D (±0.50 D in 90%). Refractive astigmatism at the 6-month follow-up visit was significantly reduced to 0.35 ± 0.32 D from 1.50 ± 0.41 D presurgery (P < 0.05). The mean IOL axis rotation was 3.20 ± 1.55°. Postoperative CS levels were high. Postoperative total order aberrations (TOAs), lower-order aberrations (LOAs), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and spherical aberrations were decreased compared with preoperative values (P < 0.05). At 3 months postoperatively, TOAs, LOAs, and HOAs with a 3 mm pupil diameter as well as TOAs, LOAs, and astigmatism aberrations with a 5 mm pupil diameter were statistically lower than those at 1-month post surgery, but without subsequent significant changes (P > 0.05). There was an increase in MTF results between preoperative and postoperative evaluations at all spatial frequencies.Conclusions:The diffractive multifocal toric IOL is able to provide a predictable astigmatic correction with apparently outstanding levels of optical quality after implantation.     

ReSTOR SV25T0与ReSTOR SN6AD1多焦点人工晶状体植入术后临床疗效对比

目的　对比观察ＲｅＳＴＯＲＳＶ２５Ｔ０与ＲｅＳＴＯＲＳＮ６ＡＤ１多焦点人工晶状体（ｍｏｌｔｉｆｏｃａｌｉｎｔｒａｏｃｕｌａｒｌｅｎｓ,ＭＩＯＬ）植入术后的临床视觉效果。方法　行白内障超声乳化吸出联合ＭＩＯＬ植入术的白内障患者４１例（４３眼）,根据植入的ＭＩＯＬ不同分为两组:ＳＮ６ＡＤ１组２０例（２２眼）植入ＲｅＳＴＯＲＳＮ６ＡＤ１ＭＩＯＬ,ＳＶ２５Ｔ０组２１例（２１眼）植入ＲｅＳＴＯＲＳＶ２５Ｔ０ＭＩＯＬ,观察两组患者术前及术后３个月裸眼近视力、裸眼中距离视力（５０ｃｍ、７０ｃｍ）及裸眼远视力,绘制离焦曲线,并进行对比敏感度检查、视觉质量及满意度问卷调查。结果　术后３个月两组患者５ｍ裸眼远视力对比差异无统计学意义（Ｐ＞０．０５）;ＳＶ２５Ｔ０组患者５０ｃｍ及７０ｃｍ的裸眼中距离视力分别为（０．１２±０．０７）ｌｏｇＭＡＲ和（０．１７±０．０８）ｌｏｇＭＡＲ,均明显优于ＳＮ６ＡＤ１组患者的（０．１８±０．０８）ｌｏｇＭＡＲ和（０．２４±０．０９）ｌｏｇＭＡＲ（均为Ｐ＜０．０５）,而ＳＮ６ＡＤ１组患者３３ｃｍ的裸眼近距离视力为（０．１１±０．０８）ｌｏｇＭＡＲ,高于ＳＶ２５Ｔ０组患者的（０．１６±０．０８）ｌｏｇＭＡＲ（Ｐ＜０．０５）;ＳＶ２５Ｔ０组术后暗视下３．０ｃ·ｄ－１及６．０ｃ·ｄ－１空间频率的对比敏感度优于ＳＮ６ＡＤ１组,差异均有统计学意义（均为Ｐ＜０．０５）;术后问卷调查示两组患者均未出现明显视觉干扰,ＳＶ２５Ｔ０组患者在近距离视力的视近满意度较ＳＮ６ＡＤ１组低,在中距离和远距离下满意度稍高,但是两组间差异均无统计学意义（均为Ｐ＞０．０５）。结论　ＲｅＳＴＯＲＳＶ２５Ｔ０与ＳＮ６ＡＤ１ＭＩＯＬ均能改善白内障患者术后视力及对比敏感度,ＲｅＳＴＯＲＳＶ２５Ｔ０在中距离视力的表现优于ＲｅＳＴＯＲＳＮ６ＡＤ１。     

Randomized trial comparing visual outcomes of toric intraocular lens implantation using manual and digital marker

Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the visual outcome of participants undergoing toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation after cataract extraction using manual marking versus digital marking for intraoperative guidance.Methods:Randomized controlled trial of participants with cataract and corneal astigmatism of 1.00 D-4.50 D. The eyes were grouped into manual marking (Group 1) and digital marking (Group 2). Preoperative Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and corneal astigmatism were determined. IOL power and axis of alignment were determined using Barrett toric calculator. Eyes were marked by bubble marker and Mendez ring in group 1 and by VERION (Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas) digital overlay in Group 2. Postoperatively, UDVA, CDVA, residual refractive cylinder and IOL misalignment were determined (iTrace system, Tracey technologies) at 1 week, 6 weeks, and 3 months.Results:A total of 61 eyes of 50 participants, 31 in Group 1 and 30 in Group 2, were studied. The mean postoperative cylindrical error was 0.50 ± 0.39 D in Group 1 and 0.29 ± 0.34 D in Group 2 (P = 0.03). 67.74% (n = 21) and 93.55% (n = 29) eyes achieved a residual astigmatism of ≤0.50 D and ≤1.00 D, respectively, in Group 1, whereas 83.33% (n = 25) and 100% (n = 30) eyes achieved a residual astigmatism of ≤0.50 D and ≤1.00 D, respectively, in Group 2 at 3 months postoperatively. Toric IOL misalignment was 4.71 ± 3.12° in Group 1 and 4.03 ± 2.99° in Group 2 (P = 0.39).Conclusion:Accurate manual marking and digital marking are equally effective guides for toric IOL alignment, intraoperatively.     

Comparison of patient outcomes after implantation of Visian toric implantable collamer lens and iris-fixated toric phakic intraocular lens

Purpose

We compared visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of Visian toric implantable collamer lenses (toric ICLs) and iris-fixated toric pIOLs (toric Artisans).

Patients and methods

A comparative retrospective analysis was performed. Toric ICLs were implanted into 30 eyes of 18 patients, and toric Artisans into 31 eyes of 22 recipients. We measured the logarithms of the minimum angle of resolution of uncorrected visual acuity (logMAR UCVA), logMAR of best spectacle-corrected corrected VA (logMAR BSCVA), MR, SE, and astigmatism (by the power vector method) before surgery and 1, 3, and 6 months thereafter. Differences between patients receiving each type of lens were compared by using a mixed model of repeated measures.

Results

Visual improvements were evident after operation in both groups. By comparing the attempted to the achieved SE values, we were able to confirm that correction of refractive error was similar in both groups. However, the logMAR UCVA was significantly higher in the toric ICL group at all postoperative time points. Although manifest cylinder power and astigmatism (calculated by using the power vector method) gradually decreased in the toric ICL group, cylinder power 1 month postoperatively increased from −2.62 to −2.75 D; astigmatism was also increased at this time in the toric Artisan group.

Conclusion

The two tested toric pIOLs were similar in terms of the ability to correct refractive error, as assessed 3 months postoperatively. However toric ICLs corrected astigmatism more rapidly and safely. Notably, the large difference in astigmatism level between the two groups 1 month postoperatively indicates that toric ICLs are more effective when used to correct astigmatism.     

Visual outcome and refractive status with monofocal toric intraocular lens implantation to correct astigmatism during cataract surgery

Purpose:Measurement, calculations, visual assessment, and refractive status after monofocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation were the purpose of this study.Methods:This was a hospital-based interventional prospective study, where 40 eyes were included with astigmatism of more than 2D. They underwent biometric assessment using Lenstar. Toric IOL power calculation was done based on Barrett''s Toric calculation method. Preoperative axis marking was done using both bubble marker and direct slit beam to avoid cyclotorsion in sleeping position. On table, axis marking was reassessed. Post phacoemulsification, monofocal Supra Phob Toric IOL was rotated till its marking matches corneal axis marking. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity was measured at 1 and 3 months.Results:Mean of refractive astigmatism reduced from 3.55 ± 0.97 preoperatively to 0.81 ± 0.28 at 1 month and 0.79 ± 0.27 at 3 months postoperatively. In total, 92.5% had residual astigmatism less than 1D at 3 months postoperatively, while 7.5% eyes had residual astigmatism more than 1D. In total, 72.5% patients had IOL rotation of less than or equal to 5°, 20% patients had it between 6° and 10° and 7.5% eyes had more than 10° at day 7 postoperatively, which required IOL repositioning.Conclusion:Accurate measurement of parameters and proper calculation reduce the postoperative residual astigmatism after toric IOL.     

AcrySof ReSTOR及Tecnis ZMB00多焦点人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的比较

目的 比较植入AcrySof ReSTOR及Tecnis ZMB00多焦点人工晶状体(muhifocal intraocular lens,MIOL)术后患者的视觉质量.方法 回顾性病例对照分析2012年1月至2013年6月期间在我院眼科行白内障超声乳化联合MIOL植入术的患者32例(43眼),根据植入的MIOL不同分为两组,分别为植入AcrySof ReSTOR+4 D MIOL的A组,17例(22眼);植入TecnisZMB00 +4 D MIOL的T组,15例(21眼).术后随访3个月,使用标准对数视力表测量裸眼远视力(5 m)及Colenbrander Mixed Contrast视力测试卡测量中距离视力(66 cm)及近视力(40 cm).术后3个月时测量明视、暗视和眩光状态时不同空间频率下的对比敏感度,同时对患者视觉干扰、满意度及脱镜率进行问卷调查.结果 术后3个月,两组间裸眼远视力、中距离视力及近视力差异均无统计学意义(均为P ＞0.05).两组在明视及明视眩光状态时3c·d-1、6c·d-1、12 c·d-1、18 c·d-1空间频率下的对比敏感度差异均无统计学意义(均为P＞0.05);暗视及暗视眩光状态下时,T组在6c·d-1、12 c·d-1、18c·d-1空间频率下对比敏感度要优于A组,差异均有统计学意义(均为P ＜0.05),在低空间频率(3 c·d-1)下两组间差异均无统计学意义(均为P＞0.05).问卷调查示两组患者术后均极少出现影响正常生活的视觉干扰现象,术后满意度差异不明显.结论 AcrySofReSTOR +4 D阶梯渐进衍射型MIOL及Tecnis ZMB00+4 D全光学面衍射型MIOL均能为白内障患者提供满意的全程视力,尽管在暗视及暗视状态下眩光时的高空间频率下Tecnis ZMB00 MIOL对比敏感度要优于AcrySof ReSTOR MIOL,但对于绝大多数患者日常生活质量无明显影响.     

多焦点和单焦点人工晶状体植入的对比研究

目的：通过对多焦点和单焦点人工晶状体植入术后视力；拟调节力及视觉症状的对比研究，探讨Array SA-40NB^TM多焦点人工晶状体植入术临床应用的有效性和安全性。方法：2002-08／2004-08施行白内障超声乳化人工晶状体植入术984眼，排除合并有其他眼病及伴有可能影响视力的全身疾病者后，分为S组术中植入单焦点人工晶状体；M组术中植入多焦点人工晶状体。观察两组术后远、近视力；拟调节力及视觉症状；采用SPSS10．0软件对术后远、近视力和拟调节力进行统计学处理。结果：M组和S组比较，术后远视力无明显差异；而术后近视力和拟调节力差异有显著性意义，M组明显优于S组。结论：多焦点人工晶状体植入术可以获得等同于单焦点人工晶状体植入术的术后远视力，但是其术后拟调节力较大，术后裸眼近视力显著高于单焦点人工晶状体植入术的患眼，是一种安全的、能有效改善患者视觉功能的手术，值得临床应用和推广。     

非球面多焦点散光矫正型人工晶状体植入术后患者的视觉质量

目的　评价非球面多焦点散光矫正型人工晶状体植入术后患者的视觉质量。方法　前瞻性对照研究。选取２０１３年１月至２０１３年１２月在天津医科大学眼科医院行超声乳化白内障吸出术的单纯年龄相关性白内障患者１３０例（１５０眼）分为三组,每组５０眼。其中,术前规则角膜散光０．５～２．５Ｄ患者植入非球面多焦点散光矫正型人工晶状体为试验组（ＡＲＴ组）;术前顺规角膜散光＜１Ｄ,逆规角膜散光＜０．７５Ｄ患者植入非球面多焦点人工晶状体为对照组１（Ｒｅｓｔｏｒ组）;术前规则角膜散光１．０～３．０Ｄ患者植入非球面散光矫正型人工晶状体为对照组２（Ｔｏｒｉｃ组）。术后１ｄ、１周、１个月、３个月用ＯＱＡＳ视觉质量分析仪检查三组患者的ＯＱＡＳ参数、对比敏感度、裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力,并进行脱镜率和患者满意度调查,绘制三组患者的离焦曲线;检查ＡＲＴ组和Ｒｅｓｔｏｒ组的最佳近视力、６０ｃｍ中距离视力;检查ＡＲＴ组和Ｔｏｒｉｃ组的轴位旋转度。结果　三组裸眼远视力及最佳矫正远视力差异无统计学意义（Ｆ＝０．６６１,Ｐ＝０．５１８;Ｆ＝０．０１３,Ｐ＝０．９８７）;ＡＲＴ组与Ｒｅｓｔｏｒ组中距离视力及最佳近视力差异均无统计学意义（ｔ＝－０．７９６,Ｐ＝０．４２８;ｔ＝－０．８８５,Ｐ＝０．３７８）;ＯＱＡＳ参数检查发现:三组的客观散射指数、调制传递函数截止频率值、ＯＶ１００％、ＯＶ２０％、ＯＶ９％差异均无统计学意义（均为Ｐ＞０．０５）;三组的斯特列尔比值、对比敏感度结果比较,差异均有统计学意义（均为Ｐ＜０．０５）,其中ＡＲＴ组与Ｒｅｓｔｏｒ组差异均无统计学意义（均为Ｐ＞０．０５）;术后３个月轴位旋转度,ＡＲＴ组与Ｔｏｒｉｃ组差异无统计学意义（ｔ＝１．０３６,Ｐ＝０．３０３）;ＡＲＴ组与Ｒｅｓｔｏｒ组脱镜率分别为９０％和８８％,高于Ｔｏｒ-ｉｃ组的１２％,三组均未发现明显视觉干扰现象。结论　非球面多焦点散光矫正型人工晶状体在有效矫正角膜散光的基础上,可以提供一个良好的全程视力,提高了患者脱镜率。