4.3 Article

Influence of spherical intraocular lens implantation and conventional laser in situ keratomileusis on peripheral ocular aberrations

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1127-1134

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.01.018

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To measure the effect of spherical intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and conventional myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) on peripheral ocular aberrations. SETTING: Visual and Ophthalmic Optics Laboratory, School of Optometry, and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. METHODS: Peripheral aberrations were measured using a modified commercial Hartmann-Shack aberrometer across 42 degrees x 32 degrees of the central visual field after spherical IOL implantation and after conventional LASIK for myopia. The results were compared with those in an age-matched emmetropic group and an age-matched myopic control group, respectively. RESULTS: The rate of quadratic change in spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, higher-order root-mean-square (RMS) aberrations, and total RMS aberrations across the visual field was greater and the amount of spherical aberration higher in the IOL group than in the emmetropic control group. However, coma trends were similar in the 2 groups. The rate of quadratic change in SE refraction, higher-order RMS aberrations, and total RMS aberrations was greater across the field and the amount of spherical aberration higher in the LASIK group than in the myopic control group. The trend in coma across the field in the LASIK group was opposite that in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Spherical IOL implantation and conventional myopic LASIK increased ocular peripheral aberrations, causing a significant increase in spherical aberration across the visual field. Laser in situ keratomileusis reversed the sign of the rate of change in coma across the field relative to that in the other groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据