Porovnání kvality časného vidění segmentované refrakční čočky SBL-2 a SBL-3

Comparison of Early Vision Quality of SBL-2 and SBL-3 Segmented Refractive Lens

Purpose: To compare objective quality of vision in patients undergoing phacoemulsification with implantation of a bilateral segmented multifocal intraocular lens (SMIOL).

Methods: A retro-prospective study included 110 eyes of 55 patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral SMIOL implantation. Patients were divided according to the type of implanted intraocular lens into group 1 (SBL-2, 62 eyes) and group 2 (SBL-3, 48 eyes).
Postoperatively, monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA, at 66 cm), uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA, at 40 cm), corrected near visual acuity (BCNVA) and defocus curve were measured and evaluated. The follow-up period was 6 months.

Results: Mean UCDVA in group 1 (SBL-2) was 0.010 ±0.15 LogMAR monocularly, 0.01 ±0.10 LogMAR binocularly, and in group 2 (SBL-3) was 0.02 ±0.11 LogMAR monocularly and -0.07 ±0.09 LogMAR binocularly. Binocular defocus curves showed that the SBL-3 group performed better than the SBL-2 lens at a vergence of -1.50 D corresponding to 66 cm (center distance), averaging 0.03 ±0.11 LogMAR, while the SBL-2 group averaged 0.12 ±0.14 LogMAR (p = 0.01). The -2.50 D vergence characterizing near vision (40 cm) was achieved by the SBL-2 lens in our study at 0.33 ±0.15 LogMAR and by the SBL-3 lens at 0.00 ±0.11 LogMAR (p = 0.00).

Conclusion: Both SMIOLs provided very good vision at all tested distances 6 months postoperatively. The SBL-2 lens performed better in UCIVA, while the SBL-3 lens excelled in UCDVA and UCNVA.

Keywords:

Visual acuity – cataract – rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens – bifocal – defocus curve

Autori: Michaela Ratajová ¹; Veronika Hoppeová ¹; Andrea Janeková ^1,2
Pôsobisko autorov: Oční centrum Praha, a. s. ¹; Lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy Hradec Králové ²
Vyšlo v časopise: Čes. a slov. Oftal., 80, 2024, No. 2, p. 93-102
Kategória: Původní práce
doi: https://doi.org/10.31348/2024/14

Súhrn

Cíl: Porovnání objektivní kvality vidění u pacientů podstupujících fakoemulzifikaci s oboustrannou implantací segmentované multifokální nitrooční čočky (SMIOL).

Metody: Do retro-prospektivní studie bylo zařazeno 110 očí (55 pacientů), kteří podstoupili operaci katarakty s bilaterální implantací SMIOL. Pacienti byli rozděleni dle typu implantované nitrooční čočky do skupiny 1 (SBL-2, 62 očí) a skupiny 2 (SBL-3, 48 očí). Pooperačně byla měřena a hodnocena monokulární i binokulární nekorigovaná zraková ostrost do dálky (UCDVA), korigovaná zraková ostrost do dálky (BCDVA), nekorigovaná zraková ostrost na střední vzdálenost (UCIVA, při 66 cm), nekorigovaná zraková ostrost na blízko (UCNVA, při 40 cm), korigovaná zraková ostrost na blízko (BCNVA) a defokusační křivka. Sledovací období činilo 6 měsíců.

Výsledky: Průměrná hodnota UCDVA ve skupině 1 (SBL-2) byla 0,10 ±0,15 LogMAR monokulárně, 0,01 ±0,10 LogMAR binokulárně a ve skupině 2 (SBL-3) byla 0,02 ±0,11 LogMAR monokulárně a -0,07 ±0,09 LogMAR binokulárně. Defokusační křivky ukázaly, že skupina SBL-3 dosahovala při vergenci -1,50 D odpovídající 66 cm (střední vzdálenost) lepších hodnot než čočka SBL-2, a to průměrně 0,03 ±0,11 LogMAR, zatímco SBL-2 0,12 ±0,14 LogMAR (p = 0,01). Vergenci -2,50 D charakterizující vidění na blízko (40 cm) dosáhla čočka SBL-2 v naší studii 0,33 ±0,15 LogMAR a čočka SBL-3 0,00 ±0,11 LogMAR (p = 0,00).

Závěr: Obě SMIOL poskytovaly 6 měsíců po operaci velmi dobré vidění na všechny testované vzdálenosti. Čočka SBL-2 vykazovala lepší výsledky v UCIVA, zatímco čočka SBL-3 vynikala v UCDVA a UCNVA.

Klíčová slova:

zraková ostrost – katarakta – rotačně asymetrická multifokální nitrooční čočka – bifokální – defokusační křivka

Zdroje

Sieburth R, Chen M. Intraocular lens correction of presbyopia. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2019 Jan-Mar;9(1):4-17.
Salerno LC, Tiveron MC Jr, Alió JL. Multifocal intraocular lenses: Types, outcomes, complications and how to solve them. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2017 Oct-Dec;7(4):179-184.
Wang X, Tu H, Wang Y. Comparative Analysis of Visual Performance and Optical Quality with a Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal Intraocular Lens and an Apodized Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens. J Ophthalmol. 2020 Apr 20;2020:7923045.
Woodward MA, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Jun;35(6):992-7.
Sachdev GS, Sachdev M. Optimizing outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017 Dec;65(12):1294-1300.
Venter JA, Collins BM, Hannan SJ, Teenan D, Schallhorn JM. Outcomes of a Refractive Segmented Bifocal Intraocular Lens with a Lower Near Addition. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022 Aug;16:2531-2543.
Xu Z, Cao D, Chen X, Wu S, Wang X, Wu Q. Comparison of clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses: A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017 Oct 26;12(10):e0186522.
Zhao J, Liu LP, Cheng HH et al. Accuracy of eight intraocular lens power calculation formulas for segmented multifocal intraocular lens. Int J Ophthalmol. 2020 Sep 18;13(9):1378-1384.
Lian H, Ma W, Wei Q, Yuan X. A comparative study on early vision quality after implantation of refractive segmental and diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. Pak J Med Sci. 2020 Nov-Dec;36(7):1607-1612.
Hui N, Chu MF, Li Y, Wang CY, Yu L, Ma B. Comparative analysis of visual quality between unilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens. Int J Ophthalmol. 2022 Sep 18;15(9):1460-1467.
Gil-Cazorla R, Shah S, Naroo SA. A review of the surgical options for the correction of presbyopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Jan;100(1):62-70.
Serdiuk V, Ustymenko S, Fokina S, Ivantsov I. Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2020 Oct-Dec;64(4):364-379.
Modi S, Lehmann R, Maxwell A, et al. Visual and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens Compared with Those of a Monofocal Intraocular Lens. Ophthalmology. 2021 Feb;128(2):197-207.
Alió JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Montalban R, Javaloy J. Visual outcomes with a single-optic accommodating intraocular lens and a low-addition-power rotational asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Jun;38(6):978-85.
Veliká V, Hejsek L, Raiskup F. Clinical Results of Implantation of Two Types of Multifocal Rotationally – Asymmetric Intraocular Lenses. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2017;73(1):3-12. Available from: https://www.cs-ophthalmology.cz/en/journal/articles/13
McNeely RN, Pazo E, Spence A et al. Visual quality and performance comparison between 2 refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Aug;43(8):1020-1026.
McNeely RN, Pazo E, Spence A et al. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction 3 and 12 months after implantation of a refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 May;43(5):633-638.
Oshika T, Arai H, Fujita Y, et al. One-year clinical evaluation of rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens with +1.5 diopters near addition. Sci Rep. 2019 Sep 11;9(1):13117.
Kretz FT, Khoramnia R, Attia MS, Koss MJ, Linz K, Auffarth GU. Clinical Evaluation of Functional Vision of +1.5 Diopters near Addition, Aspheric, Rotational Asymmetric Multifocal Intraocular Lens. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;30(5):382-389.
Pedrotti E, Mastropasqua R, Bonetto J et al. Quality of vision, patient satisfaction and long-term visual function after bilateral implantation of a low addition multifocal intraocular lens. Int Ophthalmol. 2018 Aug;38(4):1709-1716.
Jing-Jing Q, Qian Z, Shu-Hua F et al. A comparison of the visual performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lenses and trifocal intraocular lenses. Materials Express. 2023 Jun;13(6):1110-1115.