Visian® ICLV4c™ and Artiflex®: Comparative Analysis with the HD Analyser™ and Integration with Subjective Performance and Anatomical Parameters

Abstract

Purpose:To analyze and compare the mid-term objective and subjective performance of two phakic intraocular lenses (PIOLs) -Visian ® ICL™ V4c and Artiflex ® and to correlate those results with anatomical parameters. Patients and Methods: Observational retrospective study including thirty patients (15 for each PIOL) randomly selected from those who underwent bilateral implantation of one of the PIOLs (60 eyes were analysed). Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuities (UDVA and CDVA), anterior chamber structural parameters, and corneal endothelial cells density and morphology were evaluated. Quality of vision was assessed both subjectively with a questionnaire, and objectively using a double-pass technology optical quality analysis system. Results: At the end of follow-up the Artiflex ® group showed better UDVA (0.95±0.11 vs 0.99 ±0.05, p=0.027) and higher proportion of eyes reaching at least 20/20 (28/30 vs 18/30, p=0.005). Excellent and similar objective scatter index (1.79±0.9 vs 2.14±1.6, p=0.306) and modular transfer function cutoff frequency (26.91±9.2 vs 26.51±11.9, p=0.784) results were achieved in the HD Analyzer ® and the questionnaire showed comparable high Satisfaction (55.7±3.5 vs 54.3±5.4, p=0.386) and low Dysphotopsia Scores (3.1±1.8 vs 2.1±2.2, p=0.213). The ICL group showed inferior anterior chamber volume (p<0.001), and angle (p<0.001) and superior pupillary diameter (p=0.007). Minimum follow-up was 24 months. Conclusion: Both the Visian ® ICLV4c™ and the Artiflex ® showed excellent optical performance through the HD Analyzer TM technology, translated in high patient satisfaction. Overall, both PIOLs showed similar safety, predictability, stability and effectiveness of for the reduction of high sphero-cylindrical refractive errors, despite better UDVA results with the Artiflex ® .

Phakic intraocular lens explantation: series of 175 surgeries

“…2–4 Both objectively measured light scatter and subjectively evaluated patient questionnaires revealed the excellent optical performance of modern pIOL. 5…”

Quality of Vision After LASIK, PRK and FemtoLASIK: An Analysis Using the Double Pass Imaging System HD AnalyzerTM®

“…They concluded that both the Visian ® ICLV4cTM and the Artiflex ® showed excellent optical performance through the HD Analyzer TM technology, with no statistically significant differences between the 2 types of phakic IOL, despite better UDVA in the Artiflex ® group. 7 While observing the graphics represented on Figures 1-4, concerning the comparison of objective quality of vision parameters between the 3 types of procedures (PRK, FS-LASIK and LASIK), we easily understand that at 1st week all parameters show highly different values in the PRK group. This could explain why these patients experience a slower recovery of visual acuity and visual quality.…”

“…They concluded that both the Visian ® ICLV4cTM and the Artiflex ® showed excellent optical performance through the HD Analyzer TM technology, with no statistically significant differences between the 2 types of phakic IOL, despite better UDVA in the Artiflex ® group. 7 …”

“…Thereby, by evaluating the true refractive performance of the eye, with no influence of visual cortex, this becomes a more objective measurement of vision quality than contrast sensitivity testing. [5][6][7] From our knowledge, there are only a few publications regarding vision quality after LASIK and PRK using this technology. Therefore, the purpose of our work was to analyze and compare the objective performance in the quality of vision of three LASER procedures: PRK, LASIK with mechanical microkeratome (LASIK-MMK) and femtosecondassisted LASIK (FS-LASIK) using this HD AnalyzerTM, Visiometrics ® double-pass imaging system.…”

In vivo optical quality of posterior-chamber phakic implantable collamer lenses with a central port

“…Authors, number of eyes included, follow-up, preoperative SE and instruments used to measure optical quality are shown. Wan et al [ 17 ] had the largest sample of all 17 studies with 137 eyes, and Baptista et al [ 22 ] had the longest follow-up period (38.5 months). Average preoperative SE across all the studies was − 8.90 D, but for individual SE value it ranged from − 4.26 D [ 21 ] to − 14.01 D [ 17 ].…”