Implantable contact lens for moderate to high myopia

Gonvers, Michel; Othenin–Girard, P.; Bornet, Chantal; Sickenberg, Michel

doi:10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00759-8

Cited by 77 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean keratometric readings were measured using an autorefractometer (ARK-700A, Nidek, Gamagori, Japan). To assess the amount of vaulting, an anterior-segment image was obtained using slit-lamp microscopy 1 year postoperatively in accordance with the procedures reported by Gonvers et al [16][17][18] In brief, the digitized photographs were taken after pupil dilation using a slit-lamp camera with the beam as thin as possible and focused on the centre of the ICL. Using the NIH-Image analysis software program, we calculated the central vaulting of the ICL over the crystalline lens (the distance between the posterior surface of the ICL and the anterior surface of the crystalline lens) to compare it with the central thickness of the ICL, which was provided by the ICL manufacturer (STAAR Surgical).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of pupil diameter after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation

Kamiya

Shimizu

Igarashi

et al. 2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To observe the changes of pupil size over time after Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) implantation. Patients and methods We retrospectively examined 30 eyes of 23 consecutive patients undergoing ICL implantation. We measured the entrance and real pupil diameters using a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer (KR-9000, Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) before and 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. We also investigated its relationship with the amount of vaulting using slit-lamp microscopy 1 year postoperatively. Results The entrance pupil diameters were 6.24 ± 0.66 (mean ± standard deviation) mm preoperatively, and 5.53 ± 0.69, 6.18 ± 0.61, 6.21±0.80, 6.29±0.74, 6.23±0.76, and 6.40±0.70 mm, 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, respectively; and the respective real pupil diameters were 5.44 ± 0.55 mm preoperatively, and 4.95 ± 0.60, 5.53 ± 0.52, 5.55 ± 0.69, 5.63 ± 0.64, 5.57 ± 0.64, and 5.72 ± 0.60 mm, 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Pupil diameters and the amount of vaulting were not significantly associated (Pearson correlation coefficient r ¼ 0.14, P ¼ 0.45 for entrance pupil, r ¼ 0.13, P ¼ 0.49 for real pupil). Conclusions Both pupil diameters decreased transiently 1 day after ICL implantation, but soon recovered to the preoperative level, indicating that intraoperative mechanical irritation of the uveal tissue and the early postoperative inflammatory response may induce transient decreases in pupil diameter, and that this surgical technique alone with appropriate ICL size selection probably induces no significant pupil diameter change.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of pupil diameter after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation

Kamiya

Shimizu

Igarashi

et al. 2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14,15,17,19,20,33,35,38 A possible factor accounting for this might be the protective effect of the rotating design of the pIOL, avoiding the continuous contact between the pIOL and any particular area of the anterior surface of the crystalline lens. Stabilization of the PRL on the cilliary sulcus should be avoided to protect the crystalline lens from the inflammatory aggression induced when interaction with this structure occurs.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 There are a number of studies evaluating the outcomes obtained with the different models of ICL, and therefore there is a complete characterization of the refractive outcomes and complications resulting from the implantation of this pIOL. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The current review will focus on the other available posterior chamber pIOL, the PRL, which has been very recently removed from the market. This pIOL was initially developed in 1987, now in its third generation, and was conceived to be implanted in the posterior chamber through an autosealing corneal incision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The posterior chamber phakic refractive lens (PRL): a review

Pérez-Cambrodí

Piñero

Ferrer-Blasco

et al. 2012

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implantation of phakic intraocular lenses (pIOLs) is a reversible refractive procedure, preserving the patient's accommodative function with minimal induction of higher order aberrations compared with corneal photoablative procedures. Despite this, as an intraocular procedure, it has potential risks such as cataracts, chronic uveitis, pupil ovalization, corneal endothelial cell loss, pigmentary dispersion syndrome, pupillary block glaucoma, astigmatism, or endophthalmitis. Currently, only two models of posterior chamber pIOLs are commercially available, the implantable collammer lens (STAAR Surgical Co.) and the phakic refractive lens (PRL; Zeiss Meditec). The number of published reports on the latter is very low, and some concerns still remain about its long-term safety. The present article reviews the published literature on the outcomes after PRL implantation in order to provide a general overview and evaluate its real potential as a surgical refractive option.

show abstract

“…Individuals now expect to be able to see without glasses: a concept driven by the success of laser refractive surgery, which enables good unaided vision for a person previously restricted to glasses or contact lens correction. However the complications and unpredictability that can be associated with corneal laser ablation treatments of high refractive errors outside the recommended range for laser ablations has led to development of a phakic posterior chamber lens implant to provide good unaided vision without risk of corneal complications 1–9 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%