후면(프리폼가공) 디자인과 전면(몰드가공) 디자인의 누진굴절력렌즈 비교분석 (Comparison analysis of clinical performance between back surface PAL's (Freeform) and front surface PAL's)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 대한시과학회
· 수록지 정보 : 대한시과학회지 / 13권 / 2호 / 99 ~ 114페이지
· 저자명 : 전인철, 김학준, 고경호, 장만호, 마기중

초록

목 적: 본 연구에서는 기존 몰드 방식의 전면 누진굴절력렌즈(PAL)와 프리폼 가공의 후면 누진굴절력렌즈를 착용하였을 때 시기능의 개선 및 시력 만족도를 비교하였다.
방 법: 전신질환이나 안질환이 없고 굴절이상 수술 또는 사시수술 병력이 없는 자로 43세에서 64세 사이의 성인 21명(남자 11명, 여자 10명)을 대상으로 현성 굴절상태에서 자각식 및 타각식 검사를 실시하여 굴절이상을 측정하였다. 기존 몰드 방식의 전면 PAL와 프리폼 가공 후면 PAL 를 10일간 격일로 착용시킨 후 처음 착용과 착용 10일 후의 각 렌즈에 대한 만족도를 설문을 통해 비교 평가하였다.
결 과: 후면 및 전면 PAL에 대하여 착용 1일째와 10일째 시력의 만족도를 비교한 결과 원거리의 선명도는 후면 PAL가 7.81점과 7.67점이었고, 전면 PAL는 7.05점과 5.38점(t=2.921, p=0.008)이었다. 원거리 주변부 시야는 후면 PAL가 7.52점과 6.86점이었고, 전면 PAL는 6.52점과 5.38점(t=2.434, p=0.024)이었다.
중간거리의 선명도는 후면 PAL가 7.81점과 7.62점이었고, 전면 PAL는 6.67점과 4.62점(t=2.815, p=0.011)이었다. 중간거리의 주변부 시야는 후면 PAL가 7.38점과 6.71점이었고, 전면 PAL는 6.52점과 4.67점(t=4.349, p=0.0003)이었다. 근거리의 선명도는 후면 PAL가 6.67점과 7.48점이었고, 전면 PAL는 6.10점과 7.46점(t=2.156, p=0.043)이었다. 근거리의 주변부 시야는 후면 PAL가 6.62점과 6.95점이었고, 전면PAL는 6.05점과 4.43점(t=3.442, p=0.003)이었다. 시선을 이동할 때 자연스러움은 후면 PAL가 7.24점과7.43점이었고, 전면 PAL는 6.48점과 4.24점(t=3.420, p=0.003)이었다. 불편함에 대한 적응도는 후면 PAL 가 7.05점과 7.86점이었고, 전면 PAL는 6.29점과 4.57점(t=3.151, p=0.005)이었다. 외부활동 시 어지러움은 후면 PAL가 7.10점과 7.95점이었고, 전면 PAL는 6.14점과 4.62점(t=2.591, p=0.017)이었다. 울렁거림현상은 후면 PAL가 7.19점과 7.86점이었고, 전면 PAL는 6.05점과 4.05점(t=3.534, p=0.002)이었다.
결 론: 자각적 만족도와 적응도는 후면 누진굴절력렌즈가 전면 누진굴절력렌즈보다 높게 나타났고, 착용1일째와 10일째의 전반적인 만족도를 비교한 결과 후면 누진굴절력렌즈는 유의한 차이가 없었으나, 전면 누진굴절력렌즈는 시간이 지날수록 만족도가 유의하게 저하되었다. 후면 누진굴절력렌즈가 전면 누진굴절력렌즈에 비해 자각적 만족도와 적응도가 전반적으로 우수한 것으로 나타났다.

영어초록

Purpose: The purpose of this study was compared fine difference of improvements and satisfactions of vision when wearing the existing mold's front PAL’s and the back surface PAL’s.
Method: The refractive error was measured in 21 normal subjects(male 11, female 10) between 43and 64 years of age using the dry subjective refraction and auto-refraction. The difference of improvements and satisfactions of vision were estimated by using questionnaires for 10 days.
Results: The score for distance vision of back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 7.81and 7.67, and the front PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 7.05 and 5.38(t=2.921, p=0.008),respectively. The peripheral distance vision of back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 7.52 and 6.86, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.52 and 5.38(t=2.434, p=0.024),respectively. The middle distance vision of back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 7.81and 7.62, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.67 and 4.62(t=2.815, p=0.011),respectively. The peripheral intermediate vision of back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 7.38 and 6.71, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.52 and 4.67(t=4.349,p=0.0003), respectively. The near vision of back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 6.67 and 7.48, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.10 and 7.46(t=2.156, p=0.043),respectively. The peripheral near vision of back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 6.62and 6.95, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.05 and 4.43(t=3.442, p=0.003),respectively. The stability and naturalness of back surface PAL's in first visit and final visit were 7.24 and 7.43, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.48 and 4.24(t=3.420, p=0.003),respectively. The peripheral near vision of back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 6.62and 6.95, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.05 and 4.43(t=3.442, p=0.003),respectively. The adaptation for uncomfortable with back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 7.05 and 7.86, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.29 and 4.57(t=3.151,p=0.005), respectively. The dizziness with back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 7.10and 7.95, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.14 and 4.62(t=2.591, p=0.017),respectively. The swimming effect with back surface PAL’s in first visit and final visit were 7.19and 7.86, and the front PAL’s in first and final visit were 6.05 and 4.05(t=3.534, p=0.002),respectively.
Conclusion: The subjective satisfaction and adaptation in back surface PAL’s is higher than that of front surface PAL’s. The general satisfaction of first visit and final visit were not showed significant difference in back surface PAL’s, but the general satisfaction for front surface PAL’s were showed significant decrease with increasing wearing time. Therefore, there is considered that the subjective satisfaction and adaptation in back surface PAL’s generally is better than that of front surface PAL’s.

참고자료

· 없음