4.4 Article

The tolerance of anisometropia

期刊

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA
卷 98, 期 4, 页码 418-426

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aos.14310

关键词

ametropia; aniseikonia; anisometropia; cataract surgery; rule of thumb

资金

  1. Candy's Foundation
  2. Synoptik Foundation
  3. Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Foundation
  4. Foundation of Boilermaker Helge Arvidsens
  5. Foundation of Manufacturer Einar Willumsen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This study examines aniseikonia, Aniseikonia tolerance range (ATR), anisometropia and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in an anisometropic population compared with a non-anisometropic population. The relationship between anisometropia and aniseikonia is determined, and the correlations between aniseikonia, anisometropia and ATR versus PRO are described. Methods One hundred and twenty-three patients with IOL-induced anisometropia >= 1 dioptre (D) (the anisometropic group) and 17 patients who had IOL-induced anisometropia <1 D (the control group) were included. Best corrected visual acuity, aniseikonia, ATR and stereoacuity were examined, and two questionnaires were completed: convergence insufficiency symptom survey (CISS) and Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-39). Results One hundred and thirteen patients had anisometropia >1 and <3 D, and 10 patients had anisometropia >3 D. There was no difference in PRO between the control group and the anisometropic group (Mann-Whitney, p-values VFQ: 0.96, CISS: 0.06). There was no correlation between anisometropia and PRO (Spearman's rank correlation test p-values: VFQ: 0.54, CISS: 0.57). Patients with low ATR were more sensitive towards anisometropia and had lower PRO than patients with high ATR (Mann-Whitney, p-values: VFQ: 0.0008, CISS: 0.11). A large tolerance of aniseikonia was observed. Conclusion No correlation between PRO and anisometropia or aniseikonia was found. Patients with low ATR are at risk of visual complaints if they are exposed to IOL-induced anisometropia. ATR might be a future screening tool in cataract patients.

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

4.4
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