摘要
【摘要】目的对比分析植入可调节人工晶状体和单焦点人工晶状体术后患者的调节力，寻找解决白内障患者术后调节力不足的方法。方法临床病例对照研究。对2014年1至9月在北京大学第三医院眼科接受白内障超声乳化联合人工晶状体植入术患者51例（69只眼）。根据植入人工晶状体类型分为2组。可调节人工晶状体组（Tetraflex KH-3500）（A组，20例30只眼）和单焦点人工晶状体组（Tecnis ZCB00）（B组，31例39只眼）。术后3个月进行随访，对术眼进行裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力、裸眼近视力、最佳矫正近视力及调节力检查。结果两组患者术后均可以获得好的裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力以及较好的最佳矫正近视力，差异比较均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。而A组的裸眼近视力明显优于B组（P〈0．01）。A组患者术后的平均调节力为2．85（2．70～3．26）D，B组患者则为0．95（0．63—1．35）D，两者间差异有统计学意义（Z=-7．105，P〈0．01）。结论相比于单焦点人工晶状体，可调节人工晶状体植入后能使患者获得更加优越的裸眼近视力，显著改善白内障手术患者的调节力。
Objective To compare the accommodation of accommodative and monofocal intraocu- lar lens （IOL）, in order to solve the problem of deficiency after the cataract surgery. Methods A to- tal of 51 patients （69 eyes） who received cataract surgery were recruited. According to the type of IOL, patients were divided into two groups： accommodative IOL group （group A） and monofocal IOL group （group B）. The uncorrected and best-corrected distance visual acuities （UCDVA and BCD- VA）, uncorrected and best-corrected near visual acuities （UCNVA and BCNVA）, and amplitude of ac- commodation were measured at postoperative 3 months. Results Differences in UCDVA, BCDVA and BCNVA among the two groups were not significant. Patients in group A exhibited a better UCN- VA and accommodation compared to patients in group B at postoperative 3 months （P 〈0.01）. Con- clusions All the two types of IOL achieve great distance visual acuity; however, accommodative IOL produce better UCNVA and accommodation.
出处
《中国实用眼科杂志》
2016年第10期1067-1071,共5页
Chinese Journal of Practical Ophthalmology
基金
首都临床特色应用研究项目（Z141107002514042）
关键词
人工晶状体
可调节
单焦点
调节力
Intraocular lens
Accommodative
Monofocal
Accommodation
