Functional reading acuity and performance: Comparison of 2 accommodating intraocular lenses
Functional reading acuity and performance: Comparison of 2 accommodating intraocular lenses
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.05.023
复制
发表时间：
2009-10-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Sanders, Monica L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brown, David;Dougherty, Paul;Sanders, Monica L.
目的：比较 2 种可调节人工晶状体 (IOL) 模型的功能阅读敏锐度和速度。地点：美国食品和药物管理局 (FDA) 临床研究 12 个研究中心中的 4 个。方法：在这项观察性研究中，作为正在进行的 FDA 临床试验的一部分，使用 MNRead 功能阅读测试来比较双侧 Tetraflex IOL 患者（第 1 组）和连续系列双侧 Tetraflex IOL 患者的阅读表现。 Crystalens IOL（第 2 组）于术后约 1 年在 4 次眼科诊所出现。两组在年龄、性别、平均术后时间和术后矫正远视力平均水平方面均匹配良好。所有检查均在中央阅片中心进行评分。结果：第 1 组有 96 名患者，第 2 组有 55 名患者。当打印尺寸为 20/63 (P = .004)、20/50 (P = .002)、20/40 (P = .001)、20/32 (P = .003) 和 20/25 (P = .001) 时，第 1 组患者的阅读能力优于第 2 组患者。在整个打印尺寸范围内，第 1 组患者每分钟阅读 80 个字或更多的比例显着高于第 2 组 (P = .002)。结论：在 20/25 至 20/63 之间的所有打印尺寸下，Tetraflex 可调节 IOL 的近读能力优于 Crystalens 可调节 IOL。
PURPOSE: To compare functional reading acuity and speed with 2 models of accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs).SETTING: Four of 12 investigative sites in a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical study.METHODS: In this observational study, which was part of an ongoing FDA clinical trial, the MNRead functional reading test was used to compare the reading performance of patients with bilateral Tetraflex IOLs (Group 1) and a consecutive series of patients with bilateral Crystalens IOLs (Group 2) presenting at approximately 1 year postoperatively at 4 ophthalmic practices. The 2 groups were well matched for age, sex, mean postoperative time, and mean level of postoperative corrected distance visual acuity. All examinations were scored at a central reading center.RESULTS: Group 1 comprised 96 patients and Group 2, 55 patients. Patients in Group 1 read better than those in Group 2 at print sizes of 20/63 (P = .004), 20/50 (P = .002), 20/40 (P = .001), 20/32 (P = .003), and 20/25 (P = .001). A statistically significantly higher proportion of patients in Group 1 than in Group 2 read 80 words per minute or more throughout the range of print sizes (P = .002).CONCLUSION: Near reading ability was better with the Tetraflex accommodating IOL than with the Crystalens accommodating IOL at all print sizes between 20/25 and 20/63.