»õ·Î¿î Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼¸¦ ³¶³» »ðÀÔÇÑ ¹Ì¼¼°¢¸·Àý°³ ¹é³»Àå ¼ö¼úÀÇ ÀÓ»óÆò°¡
Clinical Outcomes After Microincision Cataract Surgery and In-the-bag Implantation of a New Intraocular Lens
½ÅöÁø, Â÷Èï¿ø, ÀÌÁÖÀº, ±èÀç¿ë, ±èÀçÇü,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
½ÅöÁø ( Shin Chul-Jin )
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
Â÷Èï¿ø ( Tchah Hung-Won )
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌÁÖÀº ( Lee Joo-Eun )
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
±èÀç¿ë ( Kim Jae-Yong )
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
±èÀçÇü ( Kim Jae-Hyung )
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
KMID : 0360220100510050677
Abstract
¸ñÀû: ¹Ì¼¼Àý°³Ã¢À» ÅëÇØ »ðÀÔ °¡´ÉÇÑ Akreos MI-60 Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼¸¦ »ðÀÔÇÑ ±ºÀÇ ÀÓ»ó¼ºÀûÀ» ÀÏ¹Ý Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼¸¦ »ðÀÔÇÑ ±º°ú ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
´ë»ó°ú ¹æ¹ý: µ¿ÀÏÇÑ ¼úÀÚ°¡ ¼öÁ¤Ã¼À¯È¼úÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÑ ÈÄ Akreos MI-60 Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼¸¦ »ðÀÔÇÑ 25¾È°ú Akreos Adapt-AO Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼¸¦ »ðÀÔÇÑ 28¾ÈÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ¼ú ÈÄ 1ÁÖ, 1°³¿ù, 4°³¿ù¿¡ ÃÖ´ë±³Á¤½Ã·Â, °íÀ§¼öÂ÷, ´ëºñ°¨µµ, ¼ö¼úÀ¯¹ß³½Ã µîÀ» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
°á°ú: ÃÖ´ë±³Á¤½Ã·ÂÀº ¼ú ÈÄ 1ÁÖ° 0.09¡¾0.11 (logMAR), 0.11¡¾0.08 (MI-60, Adapt-AO ¼ø), ¼ú ÈÄ 1°³¿ù° 0.06¡¾0.07, 0.06¡¾0.06, ¼ú ÈÄ 4°³¿ù° 0.05¡¾0.06, 0.06¡¾0.05·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù(Mann-Whitney U test, p£¾0.05). ±¼Àý¿ÀÂ÷´Â ¼ú ÈÄ 1ÁÖ, 1°³¿ù, 4°³¿ù ° ¸ðµÎ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. µÎ ±º°£ °íÀ§¼öÂ÷, ´ëºñ°¨µµ¿¡¼ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾úÀ¸³ª, ¼ú ÈÄ 1°³¿ù, 4°³¿ù° ¼ö¼úÀ¯¹ß³½Ã´Â MI-60 ±º¿¡¼ À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ÀÛ¾Ò´Ù.
°á·Ð: Akreos MI-60 Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼´Â ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ÀÓ»ó¼ºÀûÀÌ °ËÁõµÈ ºñ±¸¸é Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼¿Í ´ëµîÇÑ ±¸¸é¼öÂ÷, ´ëºñ°¨µµ¸¦ º¸ÀÌ°í, ¿©±â¿¡ ¹Ì¼¼ Àý°³¼ö¼úÀÇ ÀåÁ¡À¸·Î ÀÛÀº ¼ú ÈÄ ³½Ã°ªÀ» º¸¿´´Ù.
Purpose: To compare visual performance after microincision cataract surgery (MICS) with the implantation of the Akreos MI-60 (MI-60) intraocular lens (IOL) through a 1.8-mm microincision with that after conventional cataract surgery with implantation of the Akreos Adapt-AO IOL (Adapt-AO).
Methods: All MICS procedures were performed by the same surgeon. The MI-60 was implanted into 25 eyes, and the Adapt-AO was place in 28 eyes. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), total high-order-aberration (HOA), contrast sensitivity, and surgically- induced astigmatism (SIA) were recorded one-week, one-month, and four-months postoperatively.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in BCVA between eyes implanted with the MI-60 or those with the Adapt-AO (MI-60 vs. Adapt-AO, 0.09¡¾0.11 at baseline (logMAR), 0.11¡¾0.08 at one-week, 0.06¡¾0.07, 0.06¡¾0.06 at one-month, 0.05¡¾0.06, 0.06¡¾0.05 at four-months according to the Mann-Whitney U test, p£¾0.05). Refractive errors were significantly less with the Adapt-AO than with the MI-60 (MI-60 vs. Adapt-AO, -0.50¡¾0.43 at baseline (diopter), -0.06¡¾0.39 at one-week, -0.50¡¾0.41, 0.01¡¾0.57 at one-month, -0.46¡¾0.36, 0.08¡¾0.58 at four-months according to the Mann-Whitney U test, p£¼0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in total HOA or contrast sensitivity between eyes implanted with the MI-60 and those implanted with the Adapt-AO. SIAs were significantly reduced in eyes implanted with the MI-60 than in those with the Adapt-AO at one-month and four-months postoperatively (Mann-Whitney U test, p£¼0.05).
Conclusions: Implantation with either the MI-60 or the Adapt-AO produced clinically acceptable outcomes, including good spherical aberration and contrast sensitivity. Furthermore, implantation with the MI-60 caused less SIA at one- and four-months postoperation, as compared to that with the Adapt-AO.
Å°¿öµå
Contrast sensitivity;Microincision cataract surgery;Phacoemulsification;Spherical aberration;Surgically-induced astigmatism
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸