A prospective comparison of phakic collamer lenses and wavefront-optimized laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis for correction of myopia

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare night vision and low-luminance contrast sensitivity (CS) in patients undergoing implantation of phakic collamer lenses or wavefront-optimized laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).Patients and methodsThis is a nonrandomized, prospective study, in which 48 military personnel were recruited. Rabin Super Vision Test was used to compare the visual acuity and CS of Visian implantable collamer lens (ICL) and LASIK groups under normal and low light conditions, using a filter for simulated vision through night vision goggles.ResultsPreoperative mean spherical equivalent was −6.10 D in the ICL group and −6.04 D in the LASIK group (P=0.863). Three months postoperatively, super vision acuity (SVa), super vision acuity with (low-luminance) goggles (SVaG), super vision contrast (SVc), and super vision contrast with (low luminance) goggles (SVcG) significantly improved in the ICL and LASIK groups (P<0.001). Mean improvement in SVaG at 3 months postoperatively was statistically significantly greater in the ICL group than in the LASIK group (mean change [logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, LogMAR]: ICL =−0.134, LASIK =−0.085; P=0.032). Mean improvements in SVc and SVcG were also statistically significantly greater in the ICL group than in the LASIK group (SVc mean change [logarithm of the CS, LogCS]: ICL =0.356, LASIK =0.209; P=0.018 and SVcG mean change [LogCS]: ICL =0.390, LASIK =0.259; P=0.024). Mean improvement in SVa at 3 months was comparable in both groups (P=0.154).ConclusionSimulated night vision improved with both ICL implantation and wavefront-optimized LASIK, but improvements were significantly greater with ICLs. These differences may be important in a military setting and may also affect satisfaction with civilian vision correction.

One-year natural course of corneal densitometry in high myopic patients after implantation of an implantable collamer lens (model V4c)

“…ICL procedures correct refractive errors without removing corneal tissue, thus avoiding the risk of secondary corneal ectasia. Currently, ICL procedures are becoming increasingly popular, especially for high ametropia correction [13,14].…”

“…The implantation of a posterior chamber implantable collamer lens (ICL) has been considered an effective procedure for myopia correction [11][12][13]. Since ICL implantation avoids ablating or removing corneal tissue, the integrity of the corneal structure and the stability of the corneal biomechanics are theoretically maintained; hence, ICL implantation, compared with corneal refractive surgeries, may minimize the risk of ectasia [14][15][16][17][18][19]. However, complications such as endothelial cell damage and intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation have also been reported [20] intraoperatively or post-operatively.…”

Refractive outcomes and optical quality after implantation of posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lens with a central hole (ICL V4c)

“…In our previous studies on optical quality after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) to correct moderate to high myopia correction, a temporary increase in intraocular scattering in the early stage (3 months postoperatively) was observed before the optical quality stabilized [ 10 , 12 ]. The pIOL implantation procedures do not interfere with the central cornea and maintain the prolate shape of the cornea; thus, it should induce less high order aberrations than the corneal refractive surgeries and avoid the corneal wound healing process of the central optical zone in myopia correction [ 31 – 36 ]. These factors could contribute to the high stability and level of optical quality after ICL V4c implantation.…”

Changes in anterior lens density after Implantable Collamer Lens V4c implantation: a 4‐year prospective observational study

“…Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) implantation shows safety and efficacy in myopia correction (Igarashi et al 2014; Moya et al 2015; Packer 2016). It has eliminated the risk of corneal ectasia as compared with conventional corneal refractive surgery (Igarashi et al 2009; Kamiya et al 2012; Parkhurst 2016). Furthermore, ICL implantation is reversible.…”