4.3 Article

Straylight measurements as an indication for cataract surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 840-848

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.11.048

关键词

-

资金

  1. Landelijke Stichting voor Blinden en Slechtzienden, Utrecht
  2. Rotterdamse Vereniging Blindenbelangen, Rotterdam
  3. Stichting Blinden-penning, Amsterdam
  4. Stichting Nederlands Oogheelkundig Onderzoek, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To assess adding straylight measurements to the indication for cataract surgery. SETTING: Onze Lieve Vrouwe Hospital, Amsterdam, and Zonnestraal Eye Clinic, Hilversum, The Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective interventional cohort study. METHODS: Before and after cataract extraction, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and straylight were recorded in all patients. Subjective complaints were documented by the 39-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-39) and a straylight questionnaire. RESULTS: The population comprised 217 patients with a mean age of 72 years +/- 9.12 (SD) (range 29 to 90 years). Preoperatively, the mean straylight was 1.55 +/- 0.29 log(s) and the mean CDVA, 0.28 +/- 0.21 logMAR. Visual acuity and straylight showed little correlation (R-2 = 0.08). The mean postoperative improvement in CDVA was 0.26 +/- 0.20 logMAR (range -0.12 to 1.12 logMAR) and in straylight, 0.31 +/- 0.32 log(s) (range -0.50 to 1.27 log[s]). The preoperative breakeven point (50% chance of postoperative improvement) was 0.06 logMAR for CDVA and 1.29 log(s) for straylight. Preoperative and postoperative questionnaires showed straylight had almost the same influence as visual acuity on quality of vision. CONCLUSIONS: Stray light and visual acuity measure different aspects of quality of vision and influenced subjective visual quality almost equally. When straylight was added to preoperative considerations of cataract extraction, postoperative results were more predictable.

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