目的:
比较 TECNIS Synergy 多焦点(型号 ZFR00V)人工晶状体 (IOL) 与 AcrySof PanOptix 三焦点(型号 TFNT00)人工晶状体在双侧白内障手术患者中的临床表现。
环境:
多中心临床环境。
设计:
前瞻性随机比较研究。
方法:
22 岁或以上的患者被随机分配 (2:1) 双侧植入 ZFR00V 或 TFNT00 IOL。终点包括 40 cm 处的平均双眼距离校正近视力 (DCNVA)、33 cm 处的明视和中间 DCNVA、明视低对比度校正远距离视力 (CDVA) 和中间 CDVA、非定向患者对眼/视觉的反应症状问卷和安全性。
结果:
在植入 IOL 的 150 名患者中,97 名 ZFR00V IOL 患者中的 95 名和 53 名 TFNT00 IOL 患者中的 52 名完成了 3 个月的随访。ZFR00V 和 TFNT00 组中的大多数患者在 40 厘米(88.4% 对 75.0%)和 33 厘米(78.9% 对 51.9%)处测量的双眼 CDVA(100% 对 96.2%)和 DCNVA 达到 20/25 或更好。双眼 DCNVA 在 40 cm 处的平均组间差异有利于 ZFR00V IOL(0.5 线 Snellen;95% CI,0.012 至 0.089;P ≤ .05)。同样,在 33 cm 处的平均双眼明视和中间 DCNVA(每个 0.8 行 Snellen;P ≤ .05 vs TFNT00)和明视高对比度和低对比度 CDVA(每个 0.5 行 Snellen;两个P≤ .05 vs TFNT00) 青睐 ZFR00V IOL。患者报告的眼部/视觉症状和安全性在 2 种 IOL 之间大致相似。
结论:
在接受白内障手术的患者中,ZFR00V IOL 显示出广泛的视力范围,尤其是近距离视力,以及比 TFNT00 IOL 更好的中间视觉性能。
"点击查看英文标题和摘要"
Comparison of 3-month visual outcomes of a new multifocal intraocular lens vs a trifocal intraocular lens
Purpose:
To compare the clinical performance of the TECNIS Synergy multifocal (model ZFR00V) intraocular lens (IOL) with that of the AcrySof PanOptix Trifocal (model TFNT00) IOL in patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery.
Setting:
Multicenter clinical setting.
Design:
Prospective randomized comparative study.
Methods:
Patients aged 22 years or older were randomly assigned (2:1) to bilateral implantation with ZFR00V or TFNT00 IOLs. End points included the mean binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm, photopic and mesopic DCNVAs at 33 cm, photopic low-contrast corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and mesopic CDVA, nondirected patient responses to an ocular/visual symptoms questionnaire, and safety.
Results:
Of the 150 patients implanted with IOLs, 95 of the 97 patients with ZFR00V IOLs and 52 of the 53 patients with TFNT00 IOLs completed the 3-month follow-up. Most patients in the ZFR00V and TFNT00 groups achieved 20/25 or better binocular CDVA (100% vs 96.2%) and DCNVA measured at 40 cm (88.4% vs 75.0%) and 33 cm (78.9% vs 51.9%). The mean between-group difference in binocular DCNVA at 40 cm favored ZFR00V IOLs (0.5 lines Snellen; 95% CI, 0.012 to 0.089; P ≤ .05). Similarly, the mean binocular photopic and mesopic DCNVAs at 33 cm (0.8 lines Snellen each; both P ≤ .05 vs TFNT00) and photopic high-contrast and low-contrast CDVA (0.5 lines Snellen each; both P ≤ .05 vs TFNT00) favored ZFR00V IOLs. Patient-reported ocular/visual symptoms and safety were generally similar between the 2 IOLs.
Conclusions:
The ZFR00V IOL showed an extensive range of vision, particularly through near distances, and better mesopic performance than the TFNT00 IOL in patients undergoing cataract surgery.