Kontakt
ICL vs. Lasik - ein wissenschaftlicher Vergleich

Visp

Vista Alpina 

Augenzentrum

Bahnhofplatz 1a
3930 Visp

T. 027 946 70 00

F. 027 946 70 03

E-mail senden

 

Sprechstunde

Montag - Freitag:

08.00 - 12.00 Uhr

13.00 - 19.30 Uhr

(Dienstags, Mittwochs und Freitags bis 18:00 Uhr)

Samstag:

08.00 - 12.00 Uhr

Termine nach

tel. Vereinbarung

 

Siders

Vista Alpina

Augenzentrum

Rue du Bourg 3
3960 Sierre

T. 027 455 34 04

F. 027 455 34 77

E-mail senden

 

Sprechstunde

Montag und Mittwoch:

08.00 - 17.45 Uhr

(Mittwoch bis 19.45 Uhr)

Dienstag:

07.30 - 12.00 Uhr

12.45 - 19.45 Uhr

Donnerstag und Freitag:

08.00 - 12.00 Uhr

12.45 - 17.30 Uhr

Samstag: geschlossen

Termine nach

tel. Vereinbarung

Disclaimer:

Augenzentrum Vista Alpina AG und die von dem Augenzentrum Vista Alpina erbrachten Leistungen stehen in keiner rechtlichen oder tatsächlichen Verbindung zur Vista Klinik AG, Laser Vista AG, Vista Klinik Net AG oder Vista Diagnostics AG.

J Refract Surg. 2007 Jun;23(6):537-53.

Matched population comparison of the Visian Implantable Collamer Lens and standard LASIK for myopia of -3.00 to -7.88 diopters.

Sanders DR1.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare matched populations of LASIK and Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) cases in the correction of myopia between -3.00 and -7.88 diopters (D).

METHODS:

One hundred sixty-four LASIK eyes with prospective data collected from a single center and 164 ICL eyes from the multicenter US ICL Clinical Trial were compared in this observational non-randomized study. The LASIK and ICL groups were well matched for age, gender, and mean level of preoperative spherical equivalent refraction.

RESULTS:

At 6 months, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) > or = 20/20 was 85% with LASIK and 95% with ICL (P = .003) compared to preoperative values of 93% and 88%, respectively (P = .292). Loss of > or = 2 lines of BSCVA was significantly lower with the ICL at 1 week (0.6% vs 10%, P < .001) and 1 month (7% vs 0%, P = .001) with comparable outcomes at 6 months (0% vs 1%). At 6 months postoperatively, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) > or = 20/15 (11% vs 25%, P = .001) and > or = 20/20 (49% vs 63%, P = .001) was better in the ICL cases. Predictability within 0.50 D at 6 months for ICL cases was 85% (67% LASIK, P < .001); 97% of ICL cases were within 1.00 D (88% LASIK, P = .002). Refractive stability (+/- 0.50 D) between 1 and 6 months was 93% with ICL compared to only 82% with LASIK (P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS:

The ICL performed better than LASIK in almost all measures of safety, efficacy, predictability, and stability in this matched population comparison, supporting the ICL as an effective alternative to existing refractive laser surgical treatments for the range of myopia studied.

J Refract Surg. 2007 Nov;23(9):853-67.

Randomized prospective comparison of visian toric implantable collamer lens and conventional photorefractive keratectomy for moderate to high myopic astigmatism.

Schallhorn S1, Tanzer D, Sanders DR, Sanders ML.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens (TICL), a toric phakic intraocular lens (IOL), and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in the correction of moderate to high myopic astigmatism.

METHODS:

This prospective, randomized study consisted of 43 eyes implanted with the TICL (20 bilateral cases) and 45 eyes receiving PRK with mitomycin C (22 bilateral cases) with moderate to high myopia (-6.00 to -20.00 diopters [D] sphere) measured at the spectacle plane and 1.00 to 4.00 D of astigmatism. All patient treatment and follow-up occurred at the Naval Medical Center San Diego. Study follow-up was 1 day, 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative.

RESULTS:

Mean best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), change in BSCVA, proportion of cases with improvement of 1 or more lines of BSCVA, proportion of cases with BSCVA and uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) 20/12.5 or better, proportion of cases with BSCVA and UCVA 20/16 or better (6 months, 88% vs 54%, P=.002), and predictability +/-1.00 D (6 months, 100% vs 67%, P<.001) were all significantly better in the TICL group than the PRK group at all time periods studied postoperatively. Similarly, contrast sensitivity, tested at both the 5% photopic level and the 25% mesopic level, was significantly better at all postoperative time points in the TICL group. Mean spherical equivalent refraction was closer to emmetropia (0.28+/-0.41 vs 0.76+/-0.86, P=.005), and predictability +/-0.50 D and stability of manifest refraction (+/-0.50 D and +/-1.00 D) were significantly better in the TICL group at all postoperative visits through 6 months. Mean astigmatism correction at 6 months was not significantly different between the two groups (0.52+/-0.33 vs 0.46+/-0.35, P=.450).

CONCLUSIONS:

The TICL performed better than PRK in all measures of safety (BSCVA), efficacy (UCVA), predictability, and stability in this comparison, supporting the TICL as a viable alternative to existing refractive surgical treatments.

Cornea. 2006 Dec;25(10):1139-46.

Comparison of implantable collamer lens (ICL) and laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for low myopia.

Sanders D1, Vukich JA.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the results of laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and implantable collamer lenses (ICL) in the correction of myopia -4 to -7.88 D.

METHODS:

A total of 1678 LASIK eyes from the Davis Duehr Eye Center, Madison, WI, and 144 ICL eyes from the 14-site US FDA Clinical Trial for ICL for Myopia were compared. Both series were concurrently operated on with 4 to 7.88 D of preoperative spherical equivalent of the manifest refraction and were examined at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively. The mean baseline myopia was slightly higher in the ICL group (ICL: -6.4 +/- 1.1 D; LASIK: -5.6 +/- 1.1 D). Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and refractions were collected prospectively in both series.

RESULTS:

BSCVA loss of at least 2 lines was significantly higher in the LASIK series in the early healing period (1 week: 6% vs. 0.7%; P = 0.008), whereas a BSCVA gain of at least 2 lines was statistically better with the ICL at 1 (5% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.001) and 6 months (4% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.013). Proportion of cases seeing 20/15 or better uncorrected (21.6% vs. 7.8%, P < 0.001) and 20/20 or better (67% vs. 57%, P = 0.027) at 6 months postoperatively was better in the ICL group. The ICL was statistically more predictable (attempted vs. achieved) at 6 months; +/-0.50 D (79% ICL vs. 70% LASIK, P = 0.034) and +/-1.0 D (97% ICL vs. 88% LASIK, P < 0.001). Stability was achieved (95% < or = 1.0 D) at the 1-week to 1-month interval for both groups (95% LASIK; 98% ICL). The stability of refraction (< or =0.5 D change) was significantly better in the ICL group than the LASIK group through 6 months. No serious complications occurred in either series.

CONCLUSIONS:

The ICL was safer and more effective than LASIK and seems to be a viable alternative to corneal refractive excimer surgery in the treatment of low myopia.

Cornea. 2003 May;22(4):324-31.

Comparison of implantable contact lens and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis for moderate to high myopia.

Sanders DR1, Vukich JA.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the results of laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and implantable contact lenses (ICL) in the correction of moderate/high myopia.

METHODS:

Five hundred fifty-nine LASIK eyes from the Davis Duehr Eye Center, Madison, WI, and 210 ICL eyes from the 14-site U.S. FDA Clinical Trial for ICL for Myopia were compared. These series were concurrently operated on with 8 to 12 D of preoperative myopia and were examined at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The mean baseline myopia was slightly higher in the ICL group, (ICL: -9.8 +/- 1.7 D; LASIK: -9.1 +/- 0.97 D). BSCVA, UCVA, and refractions were collected prospectively in both series.

RESULTS:

Every index of BSCVA, UCVA, predictability of refraction, and stability of refraction studied favored the ICL over the LASIK procedure. All but one of the indices (UCVA % 20/40 or better) were statistically significant in at least half of the time periods studied. At 6-month follow-up, both the loss of two or more lines (ICL: 0%; LASIK: 2%; p = 0.05) and gain of two or more lines (ICL: 7%; LASIK: 3%; p = 0.04) of BSCVA were better with the ICL. Similarly, efficacy outcomes with the ICL were better with predictability (attempted versus achieved +/-1.0 D) of the ICL at 90%; 76% with LASIK (p < 0.001). In this highly myopic series, UCVA 20/20 or better was 50% with ICL compared with 35% with LASIK (p < 0.001). No serious complications occurred in either series of cases.

CONCLUSIONS:

The ICL was safer and more effective than LASIK and appears to be a viable alternative to corneal refractive excimer surgery in the treatment of moderate to high myopia.

Cornea. 2012 Apr;31(4):454-61. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823f0b29.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing excimer laser and phakic intraocular lenses for myopia between 6.0 and 20.0 diopters.

Barsam A1, Allan BD.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing excimer laser refractive surgery and phakic intraocular lenses (pIOLs) for the correction of myopia between 6.0 and 20.0 diopters (D). pIOLs are an alternative surgical option to excimer laser for these patients. The evidence base comparing these 2 methods has never been assessed systematically.

METHODS:

Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, International. We performed a comprehensive literature search using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology to identify RCTs. A meta-analysis on the results of RCTs was performed. We analyzed data for efficacy outcomes, accuracy outcomes, safety outcomes, adverse effects, and quality-of-life measures.

RESULTS:

This review included 3 RCTs with a total of 228 eyes. The range of myopia was 6.0 to 20.0 D with up to 4.0 D of astigmatism. The pIOL group was less likely to lose 2 or more lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity at 12 months (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.66, P = 0.001). PIOL surgery scored more highly on patient satisfaction/preference questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results of this systematic review show that pIOLs are safer within 1 year of follow-up compared with excimer laser surgical correction for myopia between 6 and 20 D. There is weaker evidence for superior visual quality in pIOL recipients. Further RCTs adequately powered for subgroup analysis with long-term follow-up are necessary to establish the ideal myopic range for excimer laser and pIOL treatments.
 

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 17;6:CD007679. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007679.pub4.

Excimer laser refractive surgery versus phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of moderate to high myopia.

Barsam A1, Allan BD.

Author information

 

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Myopia is a condition in which the focusing power (refraction) of the eye is greater than that required for clear distance vision. There are two main types of surgical correction for moderate to high myopia; excimer laser and phakic intraocular lenses (IOLs). Excimer laserrefractive surgery for myopia works by removing corneal stroma to lessen the refractive power of the cornea and to bring the image of a viewed object into focus onto the retina rather than in front of it. Phakic IOLs for the treatment of myopia work by diverging light rays so that the image of a viewed object is brought into focus onto the retina rather than in front of the retina. They can be placed either in the anterior chamber of the eye in front of the iris or in the posterior chamber of the eye between the iris and the natural lens.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare excimer laser refractive surgery and phakic IOLs for the correction of moderate to high myopia by evaluating postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, refractive outcome, potential loss of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and the incidence of adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to February 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 11 February 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing excimer laser refractive surgery and phakic IOLs for the correction of myopia greater than 6.0 diopters (D) spherical equivalent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We performed data analysis. We summarised data for outcomes using odds ratios. We used a fixed-effect model as only three trials were included in the review.

MAIN RESULTS:

This review included three RCTs with a total of 228 eyes. The range of myopia of included patients was -6.0 D to -20.0 D of myopia with up to 4.0 D of myopic astigmatism. The percentage of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better at 12 months postoperative was not significantly different between the two groups. Phakic IOL surgery was safer than excimer laser surgical correction for moderate to high myopia as it results in significantly less loss of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 12 months postoperatively. However there is a low risk of developing early cataract with phakic IOLs. Phakic IOL surgery appears to result in better contrast sensitivity than excimer laser correction for moderate to high myopia. Phakic IOL surgery also scored more highly on patient satisfaction/preference questionnaires.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

The results of this review suggest that, at one year post surgery, phakic IOLs are safer than excimer laser surgical correction for moderate to high myopia in the range of -6.0 to -20.0 D and phakic IOLs are preferred by patients. While phakic IOLs might be accepted clinical practice for higher levels of myopia (greater than or equal to 7.0 D of myopic spherical equivalent with or without astigmatism), it may be worth considering phakic IOL treatment over excimer laser correction for more moderate levels of myopia (less than or equal to 7.0 D of myopic spherical equivalent with or without astigmatism). Further RCTs adequately powered for subgroup analysis are necessary to further elucidate the ideal range of myopia for phakic IOLs. This data should be considered alongside comparative data addressing long-term safety as it emerges

Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2014 Apr;77(2):103-9.

Implantable collamer lens and femtosecond laser for myopia: comparison using an adaptive optics visual simulator.

Pérez-Vives C1, Albarrán-Diego C1, García-Lázaro S1, Ferrer-Blasco T1, Montés-Micó R1.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare optical and visual quality of implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation and femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (F-LASIK) for myopia.

METHODS:

The CRX1 adaptive optics visual simulator (Imagine Eyes, Orsay, France) was used to simulate the wavefront aberration pattern after the two surgical procedures for -3-diopter (D) and -6-D myopia. Visual acuity at different contrasts and contrast sensitivities at 10, 20, and 25 cycles/degree (cpd) were measured for 3-mm and 5-mm pupils. The modulation transfer function (MTF) and point spread function (PSF) were calculated for 5-mm pupils.

RESULTS:

F-LASIK MTF was worse than ICL MTF, which was close to diffraction-limited MTF. ICL cases showed less spread out of PSF than F-LASIK cases. ICL cases showed better visual acuity values than F-LASIK cases for all pupils, contrasts, and myopic treatments (p<0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in contrast sensitivities between ICL and F-LASIK cases with -3-D myopia for both pupils for all evaluated spatial frequencies (p>0.05). For -6-D myopia, however, statistically significant differences in contrast sensitivities were found for both pupils for all evaluated spatial frequencies (p<0.05). Contrast sensitivities were better after ICL implantation than after F-LASIK.

CONCLUSIONS:

ICL implantation and F-LASIK provide good optical and visual quality, although the former provides better outcomes of MTF, PSF, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity

Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jul;148(1):164-70.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.02.001. Epub 2009 Apr 17.

Visual performance after implantable collamer lens implantation and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia.

Igarashi A1, Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Komatsu M.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare postoperative visual function after implantable collamer lens (ICL; STAAR Surgical, Nidau, Switzerland) implantation and after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (WFG-LASIK) in eyes with high myopia.

DESIGN:

Retrospective, observational case study.

METHODS:

We investigated 46 eyes of 33 patients undergoing ICL implantation and 47 eyes of 29 patients undergoing WFG-LASIK (Technolas217z; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York, USA) for the correction of high myopia (manifest spherical equivalent < or = -6 diopters). Ocular higher-order aberrations (HOA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) function were measured by Hartmann-Shack aberrometry (KR-9000; Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) and a CS unit (VCTS-6500; Vistech Consultants Inc, Dayton, Ohio, USA) before and 3 months after surgery, respectively. From the CS, the area under the log CS function (AULCSF) was calculated.

RESULTS:

For a 4-mm pupil, the changes in ocular coma-like aberrations, spherical-like aberrations, and total HOAs after ICL implantation were significantly less than those after WFG-LASIK (P < .001, Mann-Whitney U test). The postoperative AULCSF was significantly increased after ICL implantation (P < .001), whereas after WFG-LASIK, it was significantly decreased (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS:

ICL implantation induces significantly fewer ocular HOAs than WFG-LASIK. Moreover, CS was improved significantly after ICL implantation, but deteriorated after WFG-LASIK in eyes with high myopia. Thus, in the correction of high myopia, ICL implantation seems to be superior in visual performance to WFG-LASIK, suggesting that it may be a better surgical option for the treatment of such eyes.

J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Oct;34(10):1687-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.06.030.

Comparison of Collamer toric implantable [corrected] contact lens implantation and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopic astigmatism.

Kamiya K1, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, Komatsu M.

Author information

 

Erratum in J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Dec;34(12):2011.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the postoperative visual outcomes after implantation of a Collamer toric implantable contact lens (ICL) and after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis in high myopic astigmatism.

SETTING:

Department of Ophthalmology, Kitasato University, Kanagawa, Japan.

METHODS:

This study comprised 30 eyes (18 patients) having toric ICL implantation and 24 eyes (17 patients) having wavefront-guided LASIK (Technolas 217z) to correct high myopic astigmatism (manifest spherical equivalent [SE] <or=-6.0 diopters [D]; manifest refractive cylinder >or=1.0 D). The safety, efficacy, predictability, stability, and adverse events were assessed preoperatively and 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS:

At 6 months, the mean safety index was 1.28+/-0.25 (SD) in the ICL group and 1.01+/-0.16 in the LASIK group and the mean efficacy index, 0.87+/-0.15 and 0.83+/-0.23, respectively. All eyes in the ICL group and 71% of eyes in the LASIK group were within +/-1.00 D of the targeted SE correction at 6 months. The mean change in manifest refraction from 1 week to 6 months was -0.04+/-0.24 D in the ICL group and -0.60+/-0.49 D in the LASIK group. There were no significant complications in the ICL group; 2 eyes (8.3%) in the LASIK group required enhancement ablations.

CONCLUSION:

Toric ICL implantation was better than wavefront-guided LASIK in eyes with high myopic astigmatism in almost all measures of safety, efficacy, predictability, and stability, suggesting that toric ICL implantation may become a viable surgical option to treat high myopic astigmatism.

Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Jun;153(6):1178-86.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.12.005. Epub 2012 Feb 23.

Visual performance after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for low to moderate myopia.

Kamiya K1, Igarashi A, Shimizu K, Matsumura K, Komatsu M.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare postoperative visual function after implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation and after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in eyes with low to moderate myopia.

DESIGN:

Retrospective observational case study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

We investigated 30 eyes of 20 patients undergoing ICL implantation and 64 eyes of 38 patients undergoing wavefront-guided LASIK for the correction of low to moderate myopia (manifest spherical equivalent: -3.00 to -5.88 diopters [D]). Ocular higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and contrast sensitivity (CS) function were measured by Hartmann-Shack aberrometry and a contrast sensitivity unit before and 3 months after surgery, respectively. From the contrast sensitivity, the area under the log contrast sensitivity function was calculated.

RESULTS:

For 4-mm and 6-mm pupils, the changes in ocular third-order aberrations, fourth-order aberrations, and total HOAs after ICL implantation were significantly less than those after wavefront-guided LASIK (P < .05, Mann-Whitney U test). The postoperative area under the log contrast sensitivity function was significantly increased after ICL implantation (P < .001), whereas, after wavefront-guided LASIK, it was not significantly changed (P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS:

ICL implantation induces significantly fewer ocular HOAs than wavefront-guided LASIK. Moreover, CS was significantly improved after ICL implantation but unchanged after wavefront-guided LASIK in eyes with low to moderate myopia. Thus, even in the correction of low to moderate myopia, ICL implantation appears to be superior in visual performance to wavefront-guided LASIK, suggesting that it may be a viable surgical option for the treatment of such eyes.

J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Dec;40(12):2019-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.03.028. Epub 2014 Oct 22.

Long-term quality of life after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation and after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia.

Kobashi H1, Kamiya K2, Igarashi A2, Matsumura K2, Komatsu M2, Shimizu K2.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the vision-related quality of life 5 years after Implantable Collamer Lens phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) implantation and after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.

SETTING:

Department of Ophthalmology, Kitasato University, Kanagawa, Japan.

DESIGN:

Retrospective case series.

METHODS:

Quality of life was measured with the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument in consecutive patients 5 years after pIOL implantation or wavefront-guided LASIK to correct myopia.

RESULTS:

Phakic IOL implantation was performed in 48 patients and LASIK in 55 patients. The scores for activity limitations, symptoms, appearance, and satisfaction with correction were significantly higher in the pIOL group than in the LASIK group (P<.05, Mann-Whitney U test). No significant differences in other scores were observed between the 2 groups (P ≥.05). The scores for near vision and dependence on correction were significantly higher in the younger subgroup than in the older subgroup with both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS:

Phakic IOL implantation (ICL) may offer significant vision-related quality-of-life advantages (eg, fewer activity limitations and symptoms and better appearance and satisfaction with correction) over wavefront-guided LASIK for myopia in the long term. Moreover, refractive surgery may provide a better quality of life in younger patients.

J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Jun;39(6):915-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.036.

Clinical outcomes after implantation of a posterior chamber collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lens with a central hole for myopic correction.

Alfonso JF1, Lisa C, Fernández-Vega Cueto L, Belda-Salmerón L, Madrid-Costa D, Montés-Micó R.

Author information

 

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To evaluate the efficacy, predictability, safety, and stability of a new-model posterior chamber Implantable Collamer Lens phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) (V4c Visian) to correct myopia.

SETTING:

Private practice, Oviedo, Spain.

DESIGN:

Case series.

METHODS:

This study enrolled patients who had implantation of a new pIOL design with a central hole for more natural aqueous flow, eliminating the need for

neodymium:YAG iridotomy or peripheral iridectomy. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, refractive error, intraocular pressure (IOP), endothelial cell count, central vault, and adverse events were evaluated 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS:

The study enrolled 138 eyes (70 patients). The mean spherical equivalent decreased from -8.73 diopters (D) ± 2.54 (SD) preoperatively to -0.03 ± 0.19 D 6 months postoperatively; 98.5% of eyes were within ±0.50 D and 100% of eyes were within ±1.00 D. The mean UDVA and CDVA were 20/20 or better in 92.1% and 95.0% of eyes, respectively, at 6 months. The safety and efficacy indices were 1.01 and 1.00, respectively. Postoperatively, the IOP remained stable over time. No significant rises in IOP (including pupillary block) and no secondary cataract were found. After 6 months, the mean vault was 482.7 ± 210.5 μm (range 90 to 970 μm) and the mean endothelial cell loss was 8.5%.

CONCLUSIONS:

Implantation of the pIOL was effective, predictable, safe, and stable for the correction of moderate to high myopic errors. This design, which avoids iridotomy or iridectomy, provided good IOP outcomes.

SIWF-ISFM Zertifikat Ophthalmochirurgie Vista Alpina Augenzentrum
Spital Zertifikat Vista Alpina Augenzentrum

Tags: Augenklinik, Augenzentrum, Augenarzt, Grauer Star, Grüner Star, Premium-Linsen, Kontaktlinsen, Laserbehandlung, Dr. Vandekerckhove, Vista Alpina, Visp, Siders, Sierre, Sitten, Sion, Brig, Schielbehandlung, Makuladegeneration, Oberwallis, Wallis, Valais, Berner Oberland, Thun, Spiez, Schweiz, Augenchirurgie, Augenoperationen, Sehen ohne Brille, Orthoptik, Netzhautsprechstunde, Netzhautchirurgie, Lidchirurgie, refraktive Chirurgie, intravitreale Therapie, Fehlsichtigkeiten, Alterssichtigkeit, Augenerkrankungen