不同的多焦点可调节人工晶状体视觉效果比较

目的研究Tetraflex可调节、ReSTOR＋3D及Tecnis多焦点3种人工晶状体植入后的视觉效果。方法双眼植入同一类型人工晶状体,有完整记录及问卷调查结果。而且随访时间3～6个月者38例（76眼）,按植入的人工晶状体类型分为3组。Tetraflex可调节人工晶状体组13例（26眼）,ReSTOR＋3D人工晶状体组14例（28眼）,Tecnis多焦点人工晶状体组11例（22眼）。结果高照度裸眼远视力：3组之间无明显差别（P〉0．05）。低照度裸眼远视力：Tetraflex及Tecnis明显优于ReSTOR＋3D（P〈0．05）。裸眼中间视力（以70em为准）：Tetraflex优于ReSTOR＋3D及Tecnis（P〈0．05）。裸眼近视力（以阅读距离30cm为准）：Tecnis优于ReSTOR＋3D及Tetraflex（P〈0．05）。夜间眩光及光晕：Tecnis及Tetraflex抱怨较少,ReSTOR＋3D较多（P〈0．05）。患者对阅读的满意度：Tecnis及ReSTOR＋3D抱怨较少,而Tetraflex则抱怨较多（P〈0．01）,主要是随着时间的推移,近视力有所下降。结论3种人工晶状体各有优缺点,但是作为老视眼矫正的选择,目前还没有一种能够真正满足每位患者需要的人工晶状体,因此只能根据不同患者的实际情况来选择合适的人工晶状体。

Comparison of visual effect of different accommodative multiple focal intraocular lens

Objective To study the visual effect of three types of intraocular lens （ IOL）, Tetraflex accommodative IOL, ReSTOR ＋ 3D Multifocal IOL, and Tecnis Muhifocal IOL. Methods Patients, who had the same type of IOL in bilateral implantation with total records and questionnaire were selected. Thirty eight patients who received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were followed up for 3 to 6 months and were divided into three groups： Tetraflex group included 26 eyes of 13 patients, ReSTOR ＋ 3D group included 28 eyes of 14 patients and Tecnis group 22 eyes of 11 patients. Results There were no statistically significant differences in high illumination uncorrected distant visual acuity （HIUDVA） among three groups postoperatively （ P 〉 0.05 ）. The patients in the Tetraflex and Tecnis groups had better visual acuity than the ReSTOR ＋3D group in low illumination uncorrected distant visual acuity （LIUDVA） （P 〈 0.05 ）. The patients in the Tetraflex group had better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity （UIVA） in 70 cm than the ReSTOR ＋ 3D and Tecnis groups （P 〈 0.05 ）. The patients in the Tecnis group had better uncorrected near visual acuity （UNVA） in 30 cm than ReSTOR ＋ 3D and Tetraflex groups （P 〈 0.05 ）. The patients in the Tecnis and Tetraflex groups had less light glare and holes than the ReSTOR ＋3D （P 〈0.05）. The patients in Tecnis and ReSTOR ＋ 3D groups had a higher degree of reading satisfaction than Tetraflex group, but the Tetraflex group had more complaints to some extent （ P 〈 0.01 ）, due to near visual acuity was lower than before with time going by. Conclusion There are advantages and disadvantages among three types of IOL, but as the choice of correcting presbyopia, at present there was no kind of IOL can really satisfy every patient. So appropiate IOL is chosen depending on each patient＇ s actual requirement.