Prospective Randomized Multicenter Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of V4c and V5 Implantable Collamer Lenses: A Contralateral Eye Study

Abstract

Purpose To compare the visual and refractive outcomes and night vision performance questionnaire results between V4c and V5 implantable Collamer lenses in a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Settings Four refractive surgery centers. Design Prospective randomized multicenter single-masked comparative study. Methods Twenty-three patients were enrolled in this study. A conventional V4c model (EVO Visian ICL) was implanted in one eye, and a V5 model (EVO+ Visian ICL), which has a larger optic diameter than the V4c model, was implanted in the contralateral eye. The uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were evaluated before and 6 months after surgery. At 6 months after surgery, a questionnaire on night vision disturbances was administered. The efficacy, safety, and predictability of the two implanted ICL models were compared. Results There were no significant differences in the postoperative UDVA and CDVA between the two ICL models. The mean efficacy indexes for the V4c and V5 lenses were 1.16 ± 0.22 and 1.03 ± 0.23, respectively. The mean safety indexes of the V4c and V5 lenses were 1.21 ± 0.20 and 1.19 ± 0.20, respectively. The night vision performance questionnaire revealed that 7 patients (37%) noticed a difference in visual performance between the eyes, and all of them reported that they could see better at night with the V5-implanted eye compared with the V4c-implanted eye. Conclusion The V4c and V5 ICL models achieved similar visual and refractive outcomes, whereas the V5 model showed a possible advantage in reducing night vision disturbances.

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

“…In this study, the safety and efficacy indices at the last follow‐up visit were 1.22 ± 0.22 and 1.03 ± 0.2, respectively, which was consistent with previous reports (Kamiya et al 2013; Lee et al 2016; Kojima et al 2018; Miao et al 2018). Kojima et al (2018) reported that the safety and efficacy indices were 1.21 ± 0.20 and 1.16 ± 0.22, respectively, at 3 months after ICL V4c implantation.…”

“…In this study, the safety and efficacy indices at the last follow‐up visit were 1.22 ± 0.22 and 1.03 ± 0.2, respectively, which was consistent with previous reports (Kamiya et al 2013; Lee et al 2016; Kojima et al 2018; Miao et al 2018). Kojima et al (2018) reported that the safety and efficacy indices were 1.21 ± 0.20 and 1.16 ± 0.22, respectively, at 3 months after ICL V4c implantation. Furthermore, another study which postoperatively followed up the patients for at least 5 years reported that the safety and efficacy indices to be 1.20 ± 0.26 and 1.04 ± 0.32, respectively (Lee et al 2016).…”

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

“…If we take a closer look at the UDVA and CDVA values (Table 2) we may observe that these values were about 0 logMAR or even better (i.e. negative values) in some cases (Shimizu et al 2012;Alfonso et al 2013;Shimizu et al 2016;Ganesh et al 2017;Kamiya et al 2017;Kamiya et al 2018;Kojima et al 2018;Takahashi et al 2018 However, a detailed analysis of these studies reveals that the preoperative values of their patients were low and, consequently, the use of these lenses should be considered successful because postoperative values were equal or better than their preoperative counterparts. This is corroborated by their corresponding safety and efficacy indices: 1.25 and 1.2, and 1.67 and 1.25, respectively.…”

“…2 patients required re-rotation surgery due to high vault (>1200 lm) 2 patients required LASIK for refractive error correction Kojima et al (2018) 1 patient showed extreme high vault and both ICLs were rotated 90°a t fixed perpendicularly decreasing the vault. Rizk et al (2019) 4 eyes with pigment dispersion and 1 eye with anterior lens opacity Sachdev et al (2019) 1 eye with visually significant cataract e296…”

Comparison of the visual performance of iris-fixated phakic lens and implantable collamer lens to correct high myopia

“…According to the site of implantation, pIOLs are classified as iris-fixated pIOLs, posterior chamber lenses, and anterior chamber angle-supported lenses. However angle-supported pIOLs are associated with corneal endothelial cell loss, iris retraction, secondary glaucoma, and subsequent pupil ovalization and are rarely used [ 5 , 6 ], while iris-fixated pIOLs and posterior chamber lenses are widely used and beneficial in high myopia [ 7 , 8 ].…”