Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Excimer Laser and Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Myopia Between 6.0 and 20.0 Diopters

Pure ICL Implantation: A Novel Ophthalmic Viscosurgical Device-Free Method

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical efficiency of a novel ophthalmic viscosurgical device-free (OVD-free) method for intraocular collamer lens (EVO-ICL) implantation in myopic eyes.

METHODS

In this study, 40 patients underwent ICL implantation for both eyes: one eye underwent traditional ICL implantation, and the other eye underwent OVD-free (pure) ICL implantation. Preoperative and postoperative UDVA, BCVA, equivalent spherical degree (SE), IOP, visual quality index, subjective visual quality scale, corneal endothelial cell density (ECD), operation time, and complications were compared between and within the traditional and pure ICL implantation groups.

RESULTS

Increased IOP >22 mmHg 2 h after surgery was noted in 8 eyes (20%) in the traditional group, but not in the pure group (0%, P < 0.001). Increased IOP relative to baseline was significantly higher at 2 h after surgery for the traditional group compared with the pure group (P < 0.001). UDVA, BCVA, and SE were significantly improved in the pure group compared with those in the traditional group 1 day (P < 0.001, P=0.003) after implantation, but not 1 week or 3 months after. Modulation transfer function cut-off frequency (MTF cut-off), Strehl ratio (SR), and OV20% were significantly better in the pure group than in the traditional group 1 day after implantation (P=0.013, P=0.009, and P=0.004). No significant difference in ECD changes within or between groups was observed (P > 0.05). The operation time for the pure group (2.897 ± 0.346 min) was significantly shorter than that for the traditional group (4.444 ± 0.656 min; P < 0.001). No complications were reported for either group during the observation period, except early IOP elevation in the traditional group.

CONCLUSIONS

The pure ICL implantation method was associated with faster visual acuity recovery, shorter operation time, and more stable intraocular pressure. Pure ICL represents a safe and convenient method for ICL implantation compared with the traditional method, completely eliminating OVD-related complications without causing additional complications.

A novel ophthalmic viscosurgical device-free phakic intraocular lens implantation makes myopic surgery safer

Purpose

To assess the efficacy and safety of a novel ophthalmic viscosurgical device-free (OVD-free) method for posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens (PIOL) implantation in myopic eyes.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, the medical records of myopic eyes that underwent PIOL (Implantable Collamer Lens, ICL) implantation for myopia correction at the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University between May 2015 and March 2017 were reviewed. A total of 49 eyes with complete data that met follow up requirements (2 h, 1 day, 1 week, 3 months postoperatively) were recruited. Based on the surgical techniques used, the eyes were divided into the OVD-free method group and the standard method group. The clinical data, including intraocular pressure (IOP), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and spherical equivalent (SE), at each follow-up were collected for comparison. Endothelial cell loss and complications were also investigated.

Results

Twenty-one eyes received the standard method, and 28 eyes received the OVD-free method. A rise in IOP > 22 mmHg at 2 h was noted in 14 eyes (66.7%) in the standard group and none (0%) in the OVD-free group (p < 0.001). The rise in IOP from baseline was significantly higher at 2 h in the standard group (10.5 ± 5.2 mmHg vs. 2.2 ± 3.3 mmHg, difference: 8.3, 95% CI 5.8 to 10.8; p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the time course of LogMAR CDVA changes between the two groups (p = 0.047). The LogMAR CDVA was significantly better in the OVD-free method group compared to the standard group at 1 day (− 0.076, 95% CI − 0.134 to − 0.018; p = 0.012), 1 week (− 0.071, 95% CI − 0.135 to − 0.007; p = 0.03), but not at 3 months (− 0.046, 95% CI − 0.107 to 0.015; p = 0.134). There was no significant difference in the time course of SE changes between the two groups (p = 0.471; p = 0.705). In the OVD-free group, mean endothelial cell loss was 4.6% at 3 months (2522 ± 281 vs. 2407 ± 226 cells/mm², difference: -115, 95% CI − 295 to 65; p = 0.187). No complications were reported in both groups except for the early IOP elevation in the standard group during the observation period.

Conclusions

The OVD-free method is safe and efficient for ICL implantation. It can be a safer method of ICL implantation compared to the standard method in that it completely eliminates ophthalmic viscoelastic devices-related complications without causing additional complications.

Update on Treating High Myopia With Implantable Collamer Lenses

The purpose of this article is to provide updates on the treatment of high myopia with the implantable collamer lens (ICL). The ICL has become an important technique used in intraocular refractive surgery. With improvements in material, design, and application, the ICL has good efficacy, predictability, long-term safety and stability, manageable complications, and reversibility. More and more refractive surgeons are taking note of the ICL. This article reviews the material characteristics and the latest designs of the ICL along with the clinical applications, visual quality, and future development.

Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of interventions provide a summary of the evidence available on intervention effectiveness and harm. Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have been published electronically in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) since 1994, and co-publication (publication of a Cochrane review in another journal) has been allowed since that time, as long as the co-publishing journal has agreed to the arrangement. Although standards for co-publication were established in 2008, the frequency of co-publication and adherence to the standards have remained largely unexamined. Our objective was to examine the frequency of co-publication of Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG) reviews, adherence to the co-publication policy, the relative numbers of citations of the two modes of publishing, and differences in times cited in CSRs with and without a co-publication.

METHODS

We identified all CEVG reviews published by May 30, 2014 in The Cochrane Library. Using keywords from the title, author names, and "Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group", we searched Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify possible co-publications. We also emailed contact authors of all identified CEVG reviews to ask them whether they had published their CSR elsewhere. We compared each co-publication to the corresponding CEVG review for adherence to the Cochrane Policy Manual (dated June 10, 2014). We recorded the number of times each CEVG review and each co-publication had been cited by others according to Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus, as of June 11, 2014.

RESULTS

We identified 117 CEVG reviews;19 had been co-published in 22 articles. Adherence to Cochrane policy on co-publication was moderate, with all authors complying with at least one of four requirements we addressed. Co-publications were cited more often than the corresponding CEVG reviews; CEVG reviews with at least one co-publication were cited approximately twice as often as CEVG reviews without a co-publication. The number of citations varied considerably depending on whether the CEVG review had a co-publication or not.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support encouraging co-publication while maintaining the primacy of the Cochrane systematic review. Support for co-publication may be tempered by other factors such as the possibility that CEVG reviews with a co-publication covered more clinically important and timely topics than those without a co-publication. Assuming that citations are a valid measure of dissemination effectiveness, the 15-year CEVG experience with co-publication of systematic reviews suggests that Cochrane authors should be encouraged to co-publish in traditional medical journals.