Optical and visual quality comparison of implantable collamer lens and femtosecond laser assisted laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia correction

A comparative study of two phakic posterior chamber implantable lenses

This study aimed to compare the postimplantation clinical outcomes of 2 types of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses (IOLs): Visian™ implantable collamer lenses (ICL; EVO+ V5; Staar Surgical, Monrovia, CA) and an implantable phakic contact lens (IPCL) (IPCL V2.0, Care Group Sight Solution, India) to correct high myopia and myopic astigmatism. This retrospective study included patients who had undergone phakic IOL implantation performed by a single surgeon between March 2021 and March 2022. Preoperative assessments included slit-lamp examination, fundus examination, spherical equivalent, uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), specular microscope parameters, and optical quality analysis system parameters. Postoperative assessments after 1 year included slit-lamp examination to detect adverse effects and spherical equivalent, UDVA, CDVA, specular microscope, optical quality analysis system, and anterior-segment optical coherence tomography. Eighty eyes from 42 patients (47 eyes from 24 patients in the ICL group and 33 eyes from 18 patients in the IPCL group) were included. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding preoperative parameters. At 1-year postoperatively, the mean UDVA in the ICL and IPCL groups was 0.019 ± 0.040 logMAR and 0.019 ± 0.041 logMAR, respectively. The mean CDVA was 0.001 ± 0.008 logMAR and 0.001 ± 0.007 logMAR in the ICL and IPCL groups, respectively, showing no statistically significant differences. The postoperative parameters did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. The visual acuity and refractive results of both groups were excellent, and both groups exhibited similar efficacy and safety profiles.

Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in highly myopic eyes with implantable collamer lens

AIM

To investigate the clinical characteristics, treatment methods and outcomes of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in highly myopic eyes with implantable collamer lens (ICL).

METHODS

High myopia patients who received treatment for nontraumatic RRD after ICL implantation surgery at the Retinal Department of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center from Jan 2018 to Dec 2022 were reviewed. Comprehensive ophthalmologic examinations including visual acuity measurement and digital fundus photography were performed in each patient.

RESULTS

A total of nine RRD eyes from nine patients who received V4c-ICL implantation were included. The mean time from ICL implantation surgery to the diagnosis of RRD was 32.44±22.56mo (range, 1-60mo). At the initial visit for RRD, giant retinal tear (GRT), horseshoe tear, simple round hole, and horseshoe tear combined with round hole were detected in 3, 3, 2, and 1 eye(s), respectively, with macula-off in eyes. Eight patients received surgical treatment, and one patient was treated by retinal laser photocoagulation alone. The ICL was preserved in 7 eyes. At the last follow-up, the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved significantly from 1.76±1.06 logMAR at presentation to 0.81±1.01 logMAR (P=0.035), and no case of recurrent retinal detachment was found.

CONCLUSION

The morphological presentation of retinal breaks is diverse in this study. The ICL can be preserved in most cases during the course of retinal detachment repair surgery in our data, companied with acceptable visual and anatomical outcomes.

A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis of EVO/EVO+ Implantable Collamer Lens: Evaluating Refractive Outcomes in the Largest Single Center Study of ICL Patients in the United States

Purpose

We evaluate visual outcomes in patients with EVO/EVO+™ (posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central port) within approved United States (US) age and refractive range indications.

Patients and Methods

This single-center retrospective study evaluated one-month, single-center postoperative data for 225 eyes meeting inclusion criteria and undergoing EVO/EVO+ implantation from April to October 2022. Data included lens size (mm), lens power (diopters of spherical and cylindrical power), preoperative best corrected visual acuity, preoperative spherical equivalent from manifest refraction, achieved postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, postoperative refraction, intraocular pressure (mmHg), and adverse events.

Results

A total of 225 eyes underwent EVO/EVO+ Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) implantation from April to October 2022, with 51.5% receiving toric lenses. The most common ICL size was 12.6mm (56.4%), followed by 13.2mm (27.5%), 12.1mm (15.1%), and 13.7mm (0.9%). Among patients with preoperative BCVA of 20/20 or better (149 eyes), 95.2% achieved postoperative UCVA of 20/20 or better, and 99.3% achieved UCVA of 20/25 or better at postoperative month one. About 75% of eyes were within a spherical equivalent target of ±0.50 D and 94% within ±1.00 D. Toric ICLs were implanted in 116 eyes (51.8%). Of these, anticipated residual cylinder >1 diopter was seen in 21 eyes (18.1%) resulting in three rotations, three explants, and three laser vision correction (LVC) enhancements. The postoperative adjustment rate (including rotations, exchanges, and LVC enhancement) was minimal (4.8%). Incidence of major adverse events was 0%.

Conclusion

Our study, the largest US single-center analysis of EVO/EVO+ ICL implantation, demonstrates strong early results and infrequent adverse events, supporting ICL safety and effectiveness. High predictability and favorable visual outcomes, including 20/20 or better, highlight the reliability of this technology. Despite study limitations, our findings underscore this technology's effectiveness. Future research should refine patient criteria and assess long-term outcomes in this evolving landscape.

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.

Posterior chamber toric implantable collamer lenses vs LASIK for myopia and astigmatism: systematic review

This systematic review compares the visual and refractive outcome of laser in situ keratomileusis with (toric) implantable collamer lens (ICL) in the treatment of myopic astigmatism. An electronic literature search led to 19 comparative articles. Refractive outcome, efficacy, safety, predictability, and stability as well as differences in contrast sensitivity and higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were analyzed for moderate (-3 to -6 diopters [D]) and high (≥-6 D) myopia. Results were either significantly in favor of (toric)-ICL or equal. Fewer HOAs and better contrast sensitivity after (toric)-ICL seem to be the largest asset in its refractive and clinical superiority. However, longer follow-up studies are indicated, specifically for systematically comparing long-term adverse effects.

Evaluation of morphological features: femtosecond-LASIK flap vs. SMILE cap, and the effects on corneal higher-order aberrations

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate morphological features of corneal flap/cap and the correlations with corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) changes after femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. Pre- and postoperative (1 and 3 months) corneal HOAs were assessed with Pentacam HR. The corneal flap/cap thickness at 32 points (± 1.5 mm, ± 2 mm, ± 2.5 mm, and ± 3 mm from the corneal vertex on meridian 0°/45°/90°/135°) were measured using anterior segment optical coherence tomography at 3 months postoperatively. Morphological features of corneal flap/cap including predictability (P), uniformity (U), and symmetry (S) were calculated and used for correlation analysis with corneal HOAs changes.

RESULTS

Eighty-six eyes (44 patients) and ninety-six eyes (50 patients) were involved in FS-LASIK and SMILE groups, respectively. Significant thicker corneal flap/cap than the predicted was observed at each measuring point and meridian in both groups (difference > 2.225 μm, the within-subject standard deviation over 6-mm optical zone). There was no statistically significant difference in predictability of corneal flap/cap thickness, while U_6 mm (P < .0001), U₀ (P < .001), U₄₅ (P = .002), U₉₀ (P < .0001), U₁₃₅ (P = .004), S_6 mm (P < .0001), S₀ (P < .001), and S₉₀ (P < .0001) over 6 mm zone were less in SMILE than in FS-LASIK. The changes of corneal tHOAs, Z (3, - 1), Z (3, 1), and SA were significantly correlated with morphological features of corneal flap/cap.

CONCLUSION

Both FS-LASIK and SMILE had good predictability in flap or cap thickness, while the uniformity and symmetry of SMILE cap were better than FS-LASIK flap. The quality of flap/cap was closely associated with the changes of corneal HOAs.

Phakic intraocular lenses: an update and review for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism in the United States

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review all phakic intraocular lenses (pIOLs) available in the United States for the correction of myopia or myopic astigmatism and offer a clinical approach to their proper use, postoperative follow-up, and analysis of visual and adverse outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

In March 2022, the FDA approved the EVO/EVO+ Visian ICL for widespread use, adding this lens to the two others available (Verisyse, Visian ICL). Cataract formation, endothelial cell loss (ECL) and surgical reintervention remain the most common adverse events. There are discrepancies between studies on ECL following implantation with pIOLs, although trends can be deduced with meta-analysis. Posterior Chamber-pIOLs (PC-pIOLs), especially the EVO/EVO+, have an overall lower mean adverse effect and subjective patient symptom profile when compared to Iris Fixated-pIOLS (IF-pIOLs). Advancements in PC-pIOL sizing have provided a noticeable difference in visual and safety outcomes.

SUMMARY

All pIOLs available in the United States provide high-quality visual correction of moderate to high myopia and/or myopia with astigmatism. Proper follow-up for ECL and cataract formation is warranted.

Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses Implantation in Eyes After Corneal Refractive Laser Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Purpose

To assess the efficacy, safety, and predictability of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract patients with previous corneal refractive surgery.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs implantation in cataract surgery after laser refractive surgery. Outcomes were efficacy, safety and predictability parameters.

Results

The authors identified 13 studies, involving a total of 128 patients and 445 eyes. Presbyopia-correcting IOLs were effective at improving distance, intermediate and near visual acuity aftercataract surgery. The proportion of post-laser surgery eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) ≥ 20/25 was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.90] and the pooled rates of spectacle independence at near, intermediate, and far distances were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.00) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.94) respectively. The percentage of participants who suffered from halos and glare was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25-0.64) and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.16-0.60), respectively. The predictability had a percentage of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) of eyes within ±0.5 diopters (D) and ±1.0 D from the targeted spherical equivalent.

Conclusions

Presbyopia-correcting IOLs provide satisfactory results in terms of efficacy, safety and predictability in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery, but have a higher risk of photopic side effects such as halos and glare.

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.