Meta - analysis of clinical randomized controlled trials comparing ReZOOM with ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery
10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2014.06.13
- VernacularTitle:ReZOOM与ReSTOR多焦点人工晶状体应用效果的Meta分析
- Author:
De-Wang, SHAO
;
Chun-Yan, YANG
;
Wei, CHEN
;
Hua, WANG
;
Bing, LIU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
cataract;
multifocal intraocular lenses;
randomized controlled trials;
systematic review
- From:
International Eye Science
2014;(6):1030-1036
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
AIM: To systematic review the effectiveness of refractive multifocal intraocular lens ( MIOL ) ReZOOM vs diffractive MIOL ReSTOR in the treatment of cataract.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing refractive MIOL ReZOOM with diffractive MIOL ReSTOR were identified by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMbase, WANFANG MED ONLINE, CMJD, SinoMed, and CNKI. Related journals also were hand-searched. Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials ( RCTs ) was evaluated by simple evaluate method that recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted by two reviewers with designed extraction form. RevMan software ( release 5. 2 ) was used for data management and analysis.
RESULTS:A total of 7 trials (846 eyes) were included for systematic review. Subgroup analyses were used according to different model comparison of ReSTOR MIOL. The results showed a significant difference in the mean of the best distance corrected intermediate visual acuity ( BDCIVA) in the ReZOOM MIOL group with WMD=-0.11, 95% CI (-0.16, -0.06) (P<0.0001). It showed a significantly difference in the mean of the uncorrected near visual acuity ( UCNVA ) , complete spectacle independent rate, halo rate and glare rate in the ReSTOR MIOL group with WMD= 0. 09, 95% CI (0. 05, 0. 14) (P<0-00001), WMD= 2. 62, 95%CI (1. 76, 3. 91) (P<0. 00001), WMD=1. 35, 95% CI (1. 15, 1. 60) (P=0. 0004) and WMD=1-29, 95% CI (1. 09, 1. 53) (P= 0. 003). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the mean of the uncorrected distance visual acuity ( UCDVA ) , the uncorrected intermediate visual acuity ( UCIVA) , the best corrected distance visual acuity ( BCDVA ) and the best distance corrected near visual acuity ( BDCNVA ) with WMD-0.03, 95% CI (-0.06, 0.01) (P=0.15), WMD= -0.04, 95% CI (-0. 09, 0. 01) (P=0. 10), WMD= -0. 01, 95%CI (-0. 04, 0-02) (P=0. 55) and WMD= 0. 06, 95% CI (-0. 06, 0. 17) (P=0. 32).
CONCLUSION: Patients implanted with ReZOOM MIOL can provide better BDCIVA; patients implanted with ReSTOR MIOL show better UCNVA, are less likely to appear light halo, glare and other visual adverse reactions; correction in spectacles cases, patients implanted with ReZOOM or ReSTOR MIOL have considerable performances in the far and near visual acuity.
