|
|
|
| Evaluation and Comparison of Visual Acuity and Dynamic Visual Acuity after Three Kinds of Intraocular Lens Implantation in Cataract Patients |
| Shurui Ke, Can Li |
| Department of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Key Lab of Ophthalmology, Chongqing Eye Institute, Chongqing 400016, China |
|
|
|
| Guide |
|
|
Abstract Objective: To evaluate and compare monocular visual acuity and dynamic visual acuity after implantation of trifocal intraocular lens, bifocal intraocular lens, or extended depth of focus intraocular lens in cataract patients. Methods: This was a prospective clinical study. Eight-one cataract eyes of 65 patients which had cataract surgery in the ophthalmology department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from January 2020 to January 2021 were involved. Thirty-three eyes were implanted with ZMB00 IOL as the bifocal group, 20 eyes implanted with AT Lisatri. 839MPIOL as the trifocal group and 28 eyes implanted with ZXR00 IOL as the EDOF group. The uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), uncorrected distance dynamic visual acuity (UDDVA), uncorrected intermediate dynamic visual acuity(UIDVA), and uncorrected near dynamic visual acuity (UNDVA) (log MAR) were assessed 3 months postoperatively. Data were assessed with a Chi-square test, analysis of variance, and Kruskal-Wallis H test. Results: The UDVA and UNVA of the three groups were not significantly different; the UIVA of the three groups was significantly different (H=23.13, P<0.001). The EDOF group was significantly better than the bifocal group (P<0.001); the trifocal group was significantly better than the bifocal group (P=0.016); there was no significant difference between the EDOF group and the trifocal group. There was no significant difference in the UDDVA of the three groups at 4 and 8 fps, but at 12 and 24 fps (H=10.96, P=0.004; H=11.52, P=0.003). The bifocal group was better than the trifocal group (H=-16.21, P=0.003; H=-17.98, P=0.004), and the EDOF group significantly better than the trifocal group (H=12.67, P=0.030; H=-16.48, P=0.009). The difference between the bifocal group and the EDOF group was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in the UIDVA of the three groups at 8 fps, but at 4, 12, and 24 fps (H=8.17-11.36, P<0.05): At 4, 12 fps, the EDOF group was better than the bifocal group (H=14.61, P=0.013; H=-14.52, P=0.009), and the difference was not statistically significant with the trifocal group; at 24 fps, the EDOF group was better than the bifocal group and the trifocal group (H=15.31, P=0.008; H=-16.60, P=0.027). The UNDVA of the three groups was significantly different at 4, 8, 12, and 24 fps (H=11.25-17.61, P<0.05): at these four speeds, the EDOF group was better than the bifocal group (H=12.71-17.87, P<0.05) and trifocal group (H=-23.04--15.87, P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between bifocal group and trifocal group. Conclusions: Patients implanted with trifocal IOL and EDOF IOL can obtain same UDVA, UIVA, UNVA, while bifocal IOL has relatively poor UIVA. The three IOLs can obtain same DVA at long distance and low speed; however, at medium or short distance, especially at high speed, the DVA of EDOF IOL is better than the other two.
|
|
Received: 25 January 2022
|
|
|
| Fund: |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Can Li, Department of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Key Lab of Ophthalmology, Chongqing Eye Institute, Chongqing 400016,China (Email: 892496605@ qq.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
