4.3 Article

Long-term visual outcome after cataract surgery: Comparison of healthy eyes and eyes with age-related macular degeneration

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 409-414

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.09.041

关键词

-

资金

  1. Vasterbottens County Council, Umea
  2. Swedish Medical Society, Stockholm
  3. Crown Princess Margareta's Committee for the Blind, Stockholm, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To compare the long-term longitudinal visual acuity outcomes after cataract surgery in eyes with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) at surgery and eyes without comorbidity. SETTING: University-based eye clinic. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. METHODS: Patients having cataract surgery were evaluated over 1 year. A clinical eye examination and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) measurement were performed preoperatively and postoperatively as well as 5 and 10 years postoperatively for eligible patients. The patients were divided into functional groups depending on postoperative signs of macular degeneration and postoperative CDVA. RESULTS: The study evaluated 810 patients. The rate of CDVA decline with age was faster in AMD patients than in patients without comorbidity. The slope of the visual acuity decline was similar in the 2 subgroups with AMD (almost normal CDVA and reduced CDVA postoperatively). After adjustment for age, there was a mean loss of 2.3 logMAR letters in patients with no comorbidity and 6.4 letters in patients with AMD at surgery for each decade of increasing age. More than 75% of AMD patients had better CDVA 10 years after surgery than before surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with signs of AMD at cataract surgery had a longitudinally worse visual outcome than patients without clinical signs of AMD. However, there is no reason to discourage patients with concurrent visually significant cataract and AMD from having surgery because most AMD patients had better CDVA 10 years after surgery than before surgery.

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