Atypical endophthalmitis after intraocular collamer lens implantation

Immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral ICL implantation: A retrospective comparison of vault height and visual outcomes

PURPOSE

To compare the visual outcomes and risks of suboptimal vault-related complications between immediate sequential bilateral ICL surgery (ISBICLS) and delayed sequential bilateral ICL surgery (DSBICLS).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Patients who underwent bilateral ICL implantation between November 2014 and December 2021 at the Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University (Shanghai, China) were included and divided into two groups: (1) ISBICLS: both eye surgeries performed on the same day, and (2) DSBICLS: second eye surgery performed < 7 days following the first one. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compare the visual outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of the suboptimal vaults.

RESULTS

Finally, 10,985 eyes were included. After PSM, 204 first surgery eyes and 162 s surgery eyes with complete postoperative data were matched. The safety and efficacy indices did not statistically differ between groups (all > 1.00), except that ISBICLS first surgery eyes achieved better efficacy index than DSBICLS group (1.03 ± 0.26 vs. 1.08 ± 0.23, P = 0.034). Excessive vault was observed in eight (4.06 %) ISBICLS first eyes, one (0.50 %) DSBICLS first eye, and none in the second surgery eye in either group. An insufficient vault was observed in one second eye and one DSBICLS second eye. We found no evidence of differences in the rate of excessive vault (OR = 0.831, 95 % CI: 0.426-1.622, P = 0.588) or insufficient vault (OR = 0.609, 95 % CI:0.062-5.850, P = 0.668).

CONCLUSION

ISBICLS provided safety, efficacy, and refraction predictability comparable to DSBICLS without increasing the risk of suboptimal vault-related complications.

Decision taking in corneal refractive surgery

A 27-year-old woman who wants to get rid of contact lenses and spectacles was seen at our clinic. She had strabismus surgery as a child and was patched for the right eye but now shows mild nondisturbing exophoria. Infrequently, she likes to box in the sports school. Her corrected distance visual acuity at presentation in the right eye was 20/16 with -3.75 -0.75 × 50 and in the left eye 20/16 with -3.75 -1.25 × 142. Her cycloplegic refraction in the right eye was -3.75 -0.75 × 44 and in the left eye was -3.25 -1.25 × 147. The left eye is the dominant eye. The tear break-up time was 8 seconds in both eyes, and the Schirmer tear test was 7 to 10 mm in right and left eyes, respectively. Pupil sizes under mesopic conditions were 6.62 mm and 6.68 mm. The anterior chamber depth (ACD) (measured from the epithelium) in the right eye was 3.89 mm and in the left eye was 3.87 mm. The corneal thickness was 503 μm and 493 μm of the right and left eye, respectively. Corneal endothelial cell density was on average 2700 cells/mm2 for both eyes. Slitlamp biomicroscopy showed clear corneas and a normal flat iris configuration. Supplemental Figures 1 to 4 (available at http://links.lww.com/JRS/A818, http://links.lww.com/JRS/A819, http://links.lww.com/JRS/A820, and http://links.lww.com/JRS/A821) show the corneal topography and Belin-Ambrósio deviation (BAD) maps at presentation of the right eye and left eye, respectively. Would you consider this patient a candidate for corneal refractive surgery (eg, laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy, laser in situ keratomileusis [LASIK], or small-incision lenticule extraction [SMILE] procedure)? Has your opinion changed given the recent opinion of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding LASIK?1 The patient herself is slightly favoring an implantation of a phakic intraocular lens (pIOL), as she prefers something reversible. Would you implant a pIOL, and which type of IOL, for this level of myopia? What is your diagnosis or are additional diagnostic methodologies needed to establish a diagnosis? What is your treatment advice for this patient? REFERENCES 1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) lasers-patient labeling recommendations; draft guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff; availability. July 28, 2022, Federal Register; 87 FR 45334. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/laser-assisted-situ-keratomileusis-lasik-lasers-patient-labeling-recommendations Accessed January 25, 2023.

Immediate or Delayed Sequential Bilateral ICL Surgery: a Survey of Chinese Ophthalmologists

INTRODUCTION

In China, the demand for implantable collamer lens (ICL) surgery is booming. Immediate sequential bilateral ICL surgery (ISBICLS) benefits patients and clinics, but it remains controversial and lacks standardization. We aim to investigate the prevalence of, factors for, and surgeon attitudes toward ISBICLS.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional survey study, an electronic questionnaire about the practice and attitudes toward performing ISBICLS or delayed sequential bilateral ICL surgery (DSBICLS) was distributed to 792 qualified ICL surgeons in Mainland China, between 4 April and 22 April 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 531 surgeons (66.79%) from 30 provinces in Mainland China responded. Among them, 374 (67.23%) were currently performing ISBICLS. Fifty-two percent (277) of surgeons reported performing ISBICLS more than 50% of the time, while 85.05% of surgeons chose to perform the second eye surgery 1 day after the first eye surgery. Seventy percent (248) of surgeons performing ISBICLS chose to perform the second eye surgery less than 30 min after the first eye surgery. Surgeons who started ICL surgery earlier (before 2010, OR = 2.772, 95% CI = 1.290-5.957, P = 0.009; 2011-2013, OR = 2.479, 95% CI = 1.060-5.800, P = 0.036), completed one-eye ICL surgery faster (< 3 min, OR = 3.936, 95% CI = 1.505-10.293, P = 0.005) and modified the second eye ICL selection less frequently (1-25%, OR = 0.203, 95% CI = 0.054-0.771, P = 0.019; 26-50%, OR = 0.173, 95% CI = 0.041-0.726, P = 0.017; 51-75%, OR = 0.299, 95% CI = 0.041-0.726, P = 0.123; 76-100%, OR = 0.163, 95% CI = 0.039-0.688, P = 0.014) tended to perform ISBICLS. No significant association was found among clinical settings, preoperative measurement devices, and hospital policies with performing ISBICLS. Regarding their attitudes toward ISBICLS, 54.63% preferred ISBICLS and 45.37% preferred DSBICLS. The main supporting reasons were patient convenience (98.64%), faster vision rehabilitation (73.56%), and improved perioperative compliance (73.22%). The concerns regarding ISBICLS included the risk of endophthalmitis (62.22%), lack of recommendation in expert consensus (61.67%), and decreased vault predictability (60.93%). The most common desires for further adoption were expert consensus on surgical criteria and patient indicators for ISBICLS (82.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

ISBICLS has been gradually adopted in Mainland China, but has not been widely accepted as a routine procedure. Surgeons' experience and skills mainly influence whether ISBICLS is performed. Further research is needed to explore standardized protocols to prevent endophthalmitis, the appropriate time interval of two eye surgery, and requisitions for surgeon skills.

Analysis of perioperative problems related to intraocular Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) implantation

PURPOSE

To introduce a modified procedure of ICL implantation, to summarize the perioperative problems and their corresponding treatment after myopia correction with Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL), and to compare the difference of complications between the no-hole ICL and hole ICL.

METHODS

We searched all articles on ICL-related perioperative problems and their corresponding treatment in Scopus, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases for the last 22 years.

RESULTS

ICL implantation is safe, effective, stable and predictable in the correction of myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism, but can also cause a series of perioperative problems, including intraoperative and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

There are many kinds of complications related to ICL, but the common intraoperative and postoperative complications mainly include abnormality of arch height, abnormal position of ICL, loss of corneal endothelial cells and corneal decompensation, high intraocular pressure and secondary glaucoma, cataract and night vision symptoms. Compared with ICL without central pore, the incidence of complications such as loss of corneal endothelial cells and corneal decompensation, high intraocular pressure and secondary glaucoma and cataract was relatively lower in central hole ICL, while postoperative complications such as night vision symptoms were obvious.

Initial clinical outcomes of two different phakic posterior chamber IOLs for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to document clinical outcomes of 2 posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses with a central hole, the implantable contact lens (IPCL V2.0) and the Visian implantable collamer lens V4c (ICL), in myopic and myopic-astigmatic patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study comprising 111 IPCL (60 toric) and 106 ICL implantations (59 toric) with a follow-up of 3 months to 2 years. Primary outcome was uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) improvement; secondary outcomes were changes in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and complications.

RESULTS

At 3 months postoperatively, 76% of plano targeted eyes in the IPCL group and 83% of eyes in the ICL group had a UDVA of 20/20 or better. Ninety-six percent of IPCL implanted eyes and 94% of ICL implanted eyes had a postoperative UDVA within 1 line of preoperative CDVA. One eye lost one line of CDVA after IPCL implantation, and no lines were lost after ICL implantation; 33.7% of IPCL eyes and 40.6% of ICL eyes gained at least 1 line of CDVA. Cataract extraction (none because of anterior subcapsular opacification) was performed after 4 ICL implantations, none after IPCL implantation. Endothelial cell loss was mild with both pIOLs. Mean IOP was not clinically significantly affected at 3 months or thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed equally excellent (statistically not different) results with the IPCL and ICL for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism, at least up to 2 years post implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the stability of these results especially with the IPCL.

SMILE Versus Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation for High Myopia: A Matched Comparative Study

PURPOSE

To compare the safety, efficacy, and patient-reported quality of vision of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and implantable Collamer lens (ICL) implantation for the treatment of high myopia.

METHODS

A database of 1,634 SMILE (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and 225 ICL implantation (STAAR Surgical, Monrovia, CA) procedures was screened for patients with a binocular preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent between -6.00 and -10.00 diopters (D) and plano target refraction. One-to-one matching was performed by preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent, age, and pupil size. All identified patients were then prospectively examined at their next regular postoperative follow-up visit and presented with the standardized and clinically validated Quality of Vision questionnaire to gauge patient-reported postoperative visual quality.

RESULTS

A total of 80 eyes (40 patients) were eligible for 1:1 matching. Mean postoperative follow-up was 27.8 ± 14.3 months in the SMILE group and 26.6 ± 17.7 months in the ICL group (P = .44). Regarding the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of plano target, refractive predictability was better in eyes treated with ICL implantation (90%) than SMILE (72.5%) (P = .045). Mean UDVA was comparable (ICL: -0.09 ± 0.10 logMAR; SMILE: -0.06 ± 0.09 logMAR; P < .09), but the efficacy (1.28 vs 1.05; P < .001) and safety (1.31 ± 0.22 vs 1.10 ± 0.25; P < .001) indices were higher after ICL implantation. ICL implantation induced significantly fewer higher order aberrations (total higher order aberrations: SMILE 0.724 ± 0.174 µm vs ICL 0.436 ± 0.114 µm; P < .01). Regarding subjective quality of vision, patients who had ICL implantation were significantly less bothered by visual disturbances, which were mainly halos after ICL and starbursts and fluctuations of vision after SMILE (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this refraction-matched comparative study, ICL implantation for high myopia yielded better refractive accuracy, better uncorrected distance visual acuity, fewer higher order aberrations, and better subjective quality of vision than SMILE. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(3):150-159.].