Comparative Study of Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation in Treating Four Degrees of Myopia: Six-Month Observation of Visual Results, Higher-Order Aberrations, and Amplitude of Accommodation

Comparing the Early Changes in Classified Higher-Order Aberrations Before and After Non-Toric and Toric Implantable Collamer Lens V4c Implantation

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare early changes in classified higher-order aberrations (HOAs) pre- and postsurgery in patients who received nontoric versus toric implantable collamer lenses (ICL; ICL Model V4c; STAAR Surgical, Monrovia, CA, USA).

METHODS

This prospective study included 124 eyes of 64 patients: 49 eyes were treated using a nontoric implantable collamer lens (ICL), and 75 eyes were treated using a toric implantable collamer lenses (TICL). Refractive parameters and ocular aberrations were examined before and 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

At one month, the safety indices were 1.24 ± 0.17 in the ICL group and 1.20 ± 0.25 in the TICL group (p = 0.39). The efficacy indices were 1.07 ± 0.17 in the ICL group and 1.15 ± 0.26 in the TICL group (p = 0.02). The root mean square (RMS) values of whole-eye total HOAs, trefoil, corneal total HOAs, spherical aberration, and intraocular spherical aberration significantly increased postoperatively in both groups. The RMS of intraocular total HOAs in the TICL group significantly increased 1 month postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were observed in HOA changes between the ICL and TICL groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The dominant increases in short-term aberrations after ICL and TICL V4c implantation were in corneal trefoil and intraocular spherical aberrations, which were related to the corneal incision and implanted lens. The HOA changes post-surgery were not statistically different between the two lens types.

Five-year follow-up of a posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central hole for correction of myopia

PURPOSE

To evaluate intermediate and long-term visual outcomes and safety of a phakic intraocular posterior chamber lens with a central hole (ICL V4c) for myopic eyes.

METHODS

Retrospective, consecutive case study of patients that uneventfully received a ICL V4c for myopia correction, with a 5-year postoperative follow-up. Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany.

RESULTS

From 241 eyes that underwent ICL implantation, we included 45 eyes with a mean age at surgery of 33 years ± 6 (18-48 years), with a 5 years follow-up. CDVA improved from 0.05logMAR ± 0.15 CDVA preoperatively to  - 0.00 ± 0,07 at 5 years and did not change significantly from 3 to 5 years' time (p = 0.266). The mean spherical equivalent (SE) improved from -10.13D ± 3.39 to  - 0.45D ± 0.69. The change in endothelial cell count showed a mean decrease of 1.9% per year throughout the follow-up. Safety and efficacy index were 1.16 and 0.78, respectively. Cataract formation was seen in 2 of 241 eyes (0.8%), but in none of the 45 eyes that finished the 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show a good intermediate and long-term stability, efficiency, and safety of ICL V4c phakic lenses in myopic eyes comparable to other known literature.

Artificial intelligence-based refractive error prediction and EVO-implantable collamer lens power calculation for myopia correction

BACKGROUND

Implantable collamer lens (ICL) has been widely accepted for its excellent visual outcomes for myopia correction. It is a new challenge in phakic IOL power calculation, especially for those with low and moderate myopia. This study aimed to establish a novel stacking machine learning (ML) model for predicting postoperative refraction errors and calculating EVO-ICL lens power.

METHODS

We enrolled 2767 eyes of 1678 patients (age: 27.5 ± 6.33 years, 18-54 years) who underwent non-toric (NT)-ICL or toric-ICL (TICL) implantation during 2014 to 2021. The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) and sphere were predicted using stacking ML models [support vector regression (SVR), LASSO, random forest, and XGBoost] and training based on ocular dimensional parameters from NT-ICL and TICL cases, respectively. The accuracy of the stacking ML models was compared with that of the modified vergence formula (MVF) based on the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentages of eyes within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, and ± 0.75 diopters (D) and Bland-Altman analyses. In addition, the recommended spheric lens power was calculated with 0.25 D intervals and targeting emmetropia.

RESULTS

After NT-ICL implantation, the random forest model demonstrated the lowest MAE (0.339 D) for predicting SE. Contrarily, the SVR model showed the lowest MAE (0.386 D) for predicting the sphere. After TICL implantation, the XGBoost model showed the lowest MAE for predicting both SE (0.325 D) and sphere (0.308 D). Compared with MVF, ML models had numerically lower values of standard deviation, MAE, and MedAE and comparable percentages of eyes within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 0.75 D prediction errors. The difference between MVF and ML models was larger in eyes with low-to-moderate myopia (preoperative SE >  - 6.00 D). Our final optimal stacking ML models showed strong agreement between the predictive values of MVF by Bland-Altman plots.

CONCLUSION

With various ocular dimensional parameters, ML models demonstrate comparable accuracy than existing MVF models and potential advantages in low-to-moderate myopia, and thus provide a novel nomogram for postoperative refractive error prediction and lens power calculation.

Visual Outcomes Early after Implantable Collamer Lens V4c Implantation in Different Preoperative Spectacle Correction: Full Correction vs. Under Correction

PURPOSE

To investigate visual outcomes early after implantable collamer lens (ICL) V4c implantation between patients with fully corrected and under-corrected spectacles preoperatively.

METHODS

Patients who implanted ICL V4c were divided into the full correction (46 eyes/23 patients) and under-correction groups (48 eyes/24 patients) based on preoperative differences between the spherical diopter of the spectacles and the actual spherical diopter. Refractive outcomes, scotopic pupil size, higher-order aberrations, and subjective visual outcomes as assessed using a validated questionnaire were compared between the two groups 3 months postoperatively. Moreover, the relationships between the severity of haloes and postoperative ocular or ICL parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

At the 3-month follow-up, the efficacy indices in the full correction and under-correction groups were 0.99 ± 0.12 and 1.00 ± 0.10, respectively; the safety indices were 1.15 ± 0.16 and 1.15 ± 0.15, respectively. Total-eye spherical aberration (p < 0.0001) and internal spherical aberration (p = 0.0005) were significantly different pre- and post-operatively in the under-correction group, while no differences were found in the full correction group. Total-eye spherical aberration (p = 0.002) and the severity of haloes (p = 0.03) were postoperatively different between the two groups. The severity of haloes was associated with postoperative spherical aberration (total-eye spherical aberration: r = -0.32, p = 0.002; internal spherical aberration: r = -0.24, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Good efficacy, safety, predictability, and stability were obtained early after surgery regardless of preoperative spectacle correction. Patients in the under-correction group possessed a shift to negative spherical aberration and reported greater severity of haloes at the 3-month follow-up. Haloes were the most common visual symptoms after ICL V4c implantation and the severity of them was correlated with postoperative spherical aberration.

EVO/EVO+ Visian Implantable Collamer Lenses for the correction of myopia and myopia with astigmatism

INTRODUCTION

Intraocular lens implantation in phakic eyes for the correction of refractive error is currently a widespread procedure. The EVO and EVO+ Visian Implantable Collamer Lenses (ICL) are two of the most prevalent lenses implanted. They incorporate a central orifice to avoid the need for iridotomy. The main difference between both ICL is the higher optical diameter zone provided by the EVO+, allowing a better quality of vision at night. This review aims to provide an overview of the current ICL models available for correcting myopia and myopic astigmatism.

AREAS COVERED

During the last decade, more than 100 scientific papers analyzing the performance of EVO and EVO+ lenses have been published. This review describes the objective visual performance achieved with the implantation of central hole ICL lenses and the subjective perception of the patients implanted with these lenses. In addition, the safety and the potential complications associated with undergoing an EVO and EVO+ ICL implantation have been addressed.

EXPERT OPINION

Refractive surgeons and candidates to undergo ICL implantation should be aware of the excellent safety and visual outcomes provided by the implantation of central hole ICL lenses. However, future research could address minor issues currently not resolved.

Intraocular Implantable Collamer Lens with a Central Hole Implantation: Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Outcomes

This review summarizes the available literature and provides updates on the efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes of phakic intraocular lens implantation using implantable collamer lens (ICL), with a focus on newer models with a central port (EVO/EVO+ Visian Implantable Collamer Lens, STAAR Surgical Inc.). All studies included in this review were identified from the PubMed database and were reviewed for relevancy of their topic. Data on hole-ICL implantation performed between October 2018 and October 2022 in 3399 eyes showed a weighted average efficacy index of 1.03 and a weighted average safety index of 1.19 within an average follow-up of 24.7 months. The incidence of complications such as elevated intraocular pressure, cataract, and corneal endothelial cell loss was low. Moreover, both quality of vision and quality of life improved after ICL implantation, confirming the benefits of this procedure. In conclusion, ICL implantation is a promising refractive surgery alternative to laser vision correction with excellent efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes.

Refractive outcomes of implantable collamer lens implantation in 1212 eyes with suboptimal corrected distance vision acuity

Purpose: To analyze the factors related to corrected distance vision acuity (CDVA) after implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation in patients with preoperative suboptimal CDVA.Methods: This retrospective study included patients with suboptimal preoperative CDVA (CDVA ≤20/25) who underwent ICL implantation (V4 or V4c). Preoperative and postoperative clinical evaluations included CDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), and refraction.Results: A total of 1,212 eyes from 731 patients were identified. CDVA increased in 90.8% of the eyes after surgery. Among them, 57.5% of the eyes (697 eyes) gained more than one line. The preoperative LogMAR CDVA was 0.32 ± 0.23, which significantly improved to 0.13 ± 0.17 postoperatively (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between ICL V4c and ICL V4 in the LogMAR UDVA, sphere, cylinder, SE, LogMAR CDVA, efficacy index, and safety index after surgery (p > 0.05). For eyes with full correction, the postoperative LogMAR CDVA =0.575 * preoperative LogMAR CDVA -0.061 (p < 0.001, R² = 0.53). For eyes with partial correction, the postoperative LogMAR CDVA =0.536 * preoperative LogMAR CDVA - 0.007 * SE - 0.196 (P < 0.001, R² = 0.55).Conclusion: ICL implantation can improve CDVA in eyes with suboptimal CDVA. This study provides the postoperative outcomes of eyes with different preoperative CDVA, which makes it convenient for surgeons to communicate with such patients before surgery.

Comparison of Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted SMILE and Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL V4c) Implantation for Moderate to High Myopia: A Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare visual outcomes and optical quality of femtosecond laser-assisted small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL V4c; STAAR Surgical) implantation for moderate to high myopia.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Chinese databases (Wan-fang data and CNKI) were comprehensively searched to identify studies comparing SMILE and ICL V4c implantation. Data of interest were extracted and analyzed by Stata V.16.0 software (StataCorp). The weighted mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the strength of the association.

RESULTS

Twelve studies incorporating 1,390 eyes of 822 patients were included. The analysis revealed ICL V4c implantation had a significantly higher safety index and lower high order aberrations, coma, and spherical aberration than SMILE in treating moderate to high myopia (P < .05). Subgroup analysis revealed such differences were more prominent in patients with high myopia who had shorter follow-up duration. When follow-up was longer than 6 months, the differences in safety index and total HOAs became nonsignificant (P > .05). The two procedures had no difference in efficacy index, postoperative visual acuity, spherical equivalent, trefoil, Objective Scatter Index, or modulation transfer function cut-off frequency (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both SMILE and ICL V4c implantation were safe and efficient for moderate to high myopia. Compared with SMILE, ICL V4c implantation might provide better postoperative visual quality in patients with high myopia in the early postoperative period. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(6):332-338.].

Changes in Accommodative and Binocular Function following Phakic Intraocular Lens for High and Low-to-Moderate Myopia

The aim was to evaluate accommodative and binocular function of phakic intraocular lens implantable collamer lens (ICL) in high and low-to-moderate myopia. Prospective comparative cohort study with 38 myopic patients who underwent ICL implantation were divided into two groups of 19 patients, each one based on the spherical equivalent (SE): high-power (SE ≤ −6 D) and low-to-moderate (SE > −6 D). The push-up amplitude of accommodation (AA), monocular accommodative facility (MAF), distance and near ocular deviation, near convergence amplitude, near point convergence (NPC), stereopsis, and accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio were assessed before surgery and 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. The mean residual refractive error at 1 month after surgery improved in both groups, 0.18 ± 0.34 D and 0.09 ± 0.26 D, respectively (p < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in AA in both groups between preoperatively and at 1-week (p = 0.001; p = 0.008, respectively) and 1-month follow-up (p = 0.001; p = 0.008). For the rest of the binocular measurements, no statistically significant postoperative changes were found in any group. This finding suggests follow-up studies on amplitude of accommodation in phakic intraocular lens ICL implantation.

Comparison of accommodation and accommodative micro-fluctuation after implantable collamer lens and LASIK surgery for myopia

BACKGROUND

To longitudinally analyze and compare the accommodative micro-fluctuation (MFs) and accommodative function between myopic patients after implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

METHODS

Patients with good corrected visual acuity (20/20 or better) and underwent ICL (V4c) and LASIK for myopic-correction (ranging from - 3.50 to - 8.50 D) were recruited. Refraction, amplitude of accommodation (AMP), accommodative lag, higher-order aberration (HOA), and MFs were recorded before surgery and 1 and 3 months after surgery. The ACOMEREF automatic refractor was used to measure the high-frequency component (HFC) of the MFs, which suggested tension of the ciliary muscle.

RESULTS

The study comprised 120 eyes. At 3 months after surgery, the manifest refractive spherical equivalent of the ICL and LASIK groups were - 0.11 and - 0.09 D, respectively (p = 0.46). HFC values were significantly higher at 1 month (p = 0.03) and 3 months postoperatively (p = 0.03) in the ICL group compared to that in the LASIK group. The ocular HOA of the ICL group was 1.08 ± 0.43 μm, which was lower than the LASIK group 1.45 ± 0.54 μm (p = 0.01). No significant differences in AMP and accommodative lag between groups were noted at 3 months postoperatively. There was a positive correlation between HFC and vault of the ICL lens (r² = 0.14, p = 0.005). There were no correlations between HFC and ocular HOA and postoperative MRSE in the two groups (all p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The HFC increased significantly after an early period of ICL implantation compared to laser in situ keratomileusis for myopic correction, which indicated increased tension of the ciliary muscle, and had a positive correlation on the vault of the ICL lens; However, studies with longer follow-up time and more structural evaluation are needed.

Implantable collamer lens versus small incision lenticule extraction for high myopia correction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To compare the efficacy, safety, predictability and visual quality between implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for high myopia correction in adults.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. A comprehensive literature search was done based on databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The efficacy index, safety index, changes in Snellen lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), predictability (difference between post-operative and attempted spherical equivalent error, SER), incidence of halos, and change in higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were compared. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and 95%CI was used to estimate categorical outcomes.

Results

Five observational studies involving 555 eyes were included in this review. Studies’ sample sizes (eyes) ranged from 76 to 197. Subjects’ refraction ranged from -6 diopter (D) to -12D. Study duration of most researches were 6 months or 12 months. Compared to SMILE, ICL implantation showed better efficacy index (MD=0.09, 95%CI:0.01 to 0.16) and better safety index (MD=0.08, 95%CI: 0.00 to 0.16). Compared with SMILE, more ICL-treated eyes gained one or more Snellen lines of CDVA (RR=1.54, 95%CI:1.28 to 1.86), more gained two or more lines (RR=2.09, 95%CI:1.40 to 3.13), less lost one or more lines (RR=0.17, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.63). There was no difference in predictability between two treatments, RRs of predictability of within ±0.5D and ±1D were 1.13 (95%CI: 0.94 to 1.36) and 1.00 (95%CI: 0.98 to 1.02). Compared with SMILE, ICL implantation came with a higher risk of halos [RR=1.79, 95%CI: 1.48 to 2.16] and less increase in total HOAs (MD=-0.23, 95%CI: -0.42 to -0.03).

Conclusion

Compared with SMILE, ICL implantation showed a higher risk of halos, but equal performance on SER control, and better performance on efficacy index, safety index, CDVA improvement and HOAs control. Overall, ICL implantation might be a better choice for high myopia correction in adults.

Visual Outcomes, Footplate Position and Vault Achieved with the Visian Implantable Collamer Lens for Myopic Astigmatism

Purpose

Report the outcomes of the implantable collamer lens (ICL) in myopic astigmatism using very high-frequency (VHF) digital ultrasound sizing.

Methods

Analysis of 42 consecutive ICL procedures using EVO and EVO+ (Visian V4c) lenses (STAAR Surgical) was done. ICL size was chosen using the ultrasound-based Kojima Formula with Insight 100 VHF digital ultrasound (VHFDU). Standard visual outcomes analysis was performed using 3-month data, also including contrast sensitivity, refractive and corneal vector analysis, and ECC. Postoperative lens position was evaluated using VHF digital ultrasound.

Results

Attempted SEQ was −10.83±3.39D (−4.40 to −16.98D). Cylinder was −1.46±1.15D (0.00 to −4.25D). One-year follow-up was available in 86% of the eyes and 3 months in 96%. Postoperative UDVA was 20/20 or better in 89% of the eyes, relative to 71% preoperatively. Postoperative SEQ refraction was ±0.50 D in 74% and ±1.00 D in 98% of the eyes. There was a gain of one line of CDVA in 43% of the eyes, 2 or more lines in 10% of the eyes, while there was a one line loss in 7% and no eyes lost 2 or more lines. The vector mean for the corneal SIA was 0.24 D Ax 100. Contrast sensitivity showed a statistically significant increase with a mean of 0.14 log units at 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (P<0.01). The mean change in ECC was −153±353 cells/mm². Lens vault was 506±233 µm (114–924 µm). Footplate insertion was in zonular position in 48.3%, ciliary body in 49.2%, and sulcus in 2.5% of locations.

Conclusion

ICL implantation resulted in high safety and efficacy but with an implantation vault range that ideally would be improved upon. VHF digital ultrasound of the lens footplate and posterior anatomical relations may provide essential information for evaluating postoperative vault outliers.

In vivo optical quality of posterior-chamber phakic implantable collamer lenses with a central port

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to summarize the optical quality results in patients following the implantation of the V4c implantable collamer lens with a central port (ICL, STAAR Surgical Inc.).

MAIN TEXT

A literature search in several databases was carried out to identify those publications, both prospective, retrospective and/or comparative with other refractive surgery procedures, reporting optical outcomes of patients who were implanted with the V4c ICL model. A total of 17 clinical studies published between 2012 and 2021 were included in this review. A detailed analysis of the available data was performed including number of eyes, follow-up and preoperative spherical equivalent. Specifically, the review focused on several optical parameters including higher-order aberrations (HOAs), modulation transfer function (MTF) cut-off frequency and Strehl ratio. This review encompassed a total of 817 eyes measured using different optical devices based on Hartmann-Shack, retinal image quality measurement and ray-tracing technologies at different follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes found in this review lead us to conclude that the ICL V4c model provides good optical quality, by means of different metrics, when implanted.

Comparison of visual outcomes after non-toric and toric implantable collamer lens V4c for myopia and astigmatism

PURPOSE

To evaluate the visual quality of myopic patients after non-toric versus toric implantable collamer lens (ICL and TICL, respectively) V4c, and to investigate the potential risk factors of postoperative night vision disturbances.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 42 eyes of 21 patients treated with ICL and 46 eyes of 23 patients treated with TICL. Refractive parameters and ocular aberrations were examined before and 6 months after surgery. Subjective quality of vision was scored by a validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

The efficacy index at 6 months was 1.14 ± 0.20 for ICL and 1.17 ± 0.16 for TICL; the safety index was 1.20 ± 0.17 for ICL and 1.20 ± 0.19 for TICL. The root mean square of total higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and trefoil was significantly increased, and no statistical differences between groups were detected in HOA changes. Many patients reported haloes (85.7% for ICL and 100% for TICL) and glare (76.2% for ICL and 65.2% for TICL), but most (94.4% for ICL and 95.5% for TICL) were satisfied or very satisfied with visual outcomes. Implantable collamer lens (ICL) toricity was the risk factor for frequency (OR = 2.81, p = 0.01), severity (OR = 3.85, p = 0.003) and bothering effect (OR = 2.89, p = 0.01) of haloes.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantable collamer lens and TICL provided comparable efficacy, safety and predictability, induced acceptable level of HOAs and achieved high satisfaction in correcting myopia and myopic astigmatism. Although not severe, haloes and glare have a non-negligible prevalence and ICL toricity is a potential risk factor of haloes.

Posterior-chamber phakic implantable collamer lenses with a central port: a review

We aimed to summarize the outcomes reported following the implantation of the V4c implantable collamer lens with a central port (ICL, STAAR Surgical Inc) for myopia correction. A literature search in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus was carried out to identify publications reporting clinical outcomes of patients who were implanted with the V4c ICL model and had a follow‐up period of at least 6 months. A total of 35 clinical studies published between 2012 and 2020 were included in the present review. A comprehensive analysis of the available data was performed, focusing on visual and refractive outcomes at different time‐points post‐surgery. In addition, adverse events and other parameters such as endothelial cell density, intraocular pressure and vault measurements—which were evaluated in some of the studies—were also compared. This review encompassed a total of 2904 eyes. The outcomes reported in this review lead us to conclude that ICL V4c implantation for myopia correction is a safe and efficient procedure, with stable visual and refractive outcomes and low adverse event rates. The patient’s anterior segment should be thoroughly characterized, and the ICL parameters should be carefully selected so as to achieve good outcomes and avoid complications.

Comparison of objective and subjective visual quality early after implantable collamer lens V4c (ICL V4c) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for high myopia correction

PURPOSE

To investigate differences in the objective and subjective visual quality of patients with high myopia following implantable collamer lens V4c (ICL V4c) versus small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) early postoperatively.

METHODS

This prospective analysis included 94 eyes of 57 patients (8 males) in the ICL V4c group (mean spherical equivalent (SE), -8.07 ± 1.03 dioptres (D)) and 103 eyes of 57 patients (13 males) in the SMILE group (mean SE, -7.85 ± 0.78 D). Refractive parameters and wavefront aberrations were recorded preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Subjective visual quality was scored with the Quality of Vision questionnaire, and operation satisfaction was evaluated 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At 6 months postoperatively, the efficacy index was 1.17 ± 0.16 in the ICL and 1.09 ± 0.20 in the SMILE group; the safety index was 1.21 ± 0.18 in the ICL and 1.12 ± 0.16 in the SMILE group. A significant increase in total higher-order aberrations (HOAs) in both the ICL and SMILE groups was observed, but to a lesser degree in ICL (p < 0.05). In the ICL group, trefoil significantly increased (p < 0.05), whereas in the SMILE group, coma, trefoil and spherical aberration significantly increased (p < 0.05). Glare, haloes and blurred vision had the highest incidences after both types of surgery, and postoperative haloes were significantly more common following ICL; 96.1% of ICL-treated and 94.9% of SMILE-treated patients were satisfied with their visual outcomes.

CONCLUSION

ICL V4c caused lower HOAs induction than SMILE. Despite the postoperative visual disturbances, both ICL and SMILE provided good efficacy, safety, predictability and high satisfaction in correcting high myopia.