Visual outcomes after small incision lenticule extraction and implantable collamer lens V4c for moderate myopia: 1-year results

Aruma, Aruma; Li, Meiyan; Choi, Joanne; Miao, Huamao; Wei, Ruoyan; Yang, Danjuan; Yao, Peng-Fei; Wang, Xiaoying; Zhou, Xingtao

doi:10.1007/s00417-020-04982-4

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…High-order aberrations were increased after both ICL and SMILE surgeries. However, when compared to SMILE, ICL induced fewer HOAs, especially coma, which is consistent with previous studies ( 1 , 18 – 20 ). Aruma et al ( 1 ) and Wei et al ( 6 ) previously reported that when compared with SMILE surgery, ICL introduced less total HOAs, coma, and spherical aberrations [Aruma et al ( 1 ): in moderate myopic patients; Wei et al ( 6 ): in high myopic patients].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…However, when compared to SMILE, ICL induced fewer HOAs, especially coma, which is consistent with previous studies ( 1 , 18 – 20 ). Aruma et al ( 1 ) and Wei et al ( 6 ) previously reported that when compared with SMILE surgery, ICL introduced less total HOAs, coma, and spherical aberrations [Aruma et al ( 1 ): in moderate myopic patients; Wei et al ( 6 ): in high myopic patients]. This makes sense given that ICL is an intraocular refractive surgery that does not require ablation of corneal tissue and does not cause flattening of the anterior surface curvature of the cornea.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This is likely related to the central hole in EVO-ICL. Aruma et al ( 1 ) and Wei et al ( 6 ) reported that the most common visual disturbance after ICL for high myopic correction was the halo. Eppig et al ( 21 ) suggested that the central hole in the ICL might be form an additional optical interface that might cause light transmissibility, especially in hyperopic or moderate-to-low-sighted eyes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Routine ophthalmic examinations were performed preoperatively and postoperatively that include ( 1 ) slit lamp and fundus examination; ( 2 ) uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and CDVA; ( 3 ) measurement of the axis (Humphrey IOL Master, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany) and intraocular pressure (IOP); ( 4 ) corneal topography (Pentacam HR, Type 70900; Oculus Optikgerate GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany); ( 5 ) Wavefront Supported Custom Ablation (WASCA) Wavefront Analyzer: deviational data were analyzed at 6.0-mm scale using Zernike polynomials under scotopic conditions without pharmacological pupillary dilation. The root means square (RMS) values of total HOAs, spherical aberration, coma aberration (i.e., vertical and horizontal coma), and trefoil aberration (i.e., vertical and oblique trefoil) were calculated (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany); ( 6 ) principal optometry and computer optometry with pupil dilation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It provides a wider range of myopic correction (0 to –18.00 D) and is minimally invasive with a short recovery time. Due to this, EVO-ICL has quickly gained mainstream recognition as the surgery of choice for the correction of high myopia ( 1 – 3 ). However, presently there are only a few studies that address the usage of EVO-ICL for correction of mild to moderate myopia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Two-Year Visual Outcomes of Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens and Small Incision Lenticule Extraction for the Correction of Low Myopia

Xian

et al. 2022

Front. Med.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate the 2-year visual quality of Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO-ICL) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for the correction of low myopia.MethodsIn this prospective study, we included 25 eyes of 25 patients (7 men) who underwent EVO-ICL and 36 eyes of 36 patients (16 men) who underwent SMILE between January 2018 and December 2018. Subjective and objective visual outcomes were compared between ICL and SMILE. All patients were followed for 2 years.ResultsAt the postoperative 2-year visit, the percentage of patients with uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) greater than or equal to preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was comparable in the ICL group (80%, 20/25) and SMILE group (88.89%, 32/36). Spherical equivalent (SE) was within ± 0.50 D in 96% (24/25) of the ICL group and 94.44% (34/36) of the SMILE group. No eyes lost more than 2 lines of CDVA. Postoperative high-order aberrations (HOAs) were significantly increased in the ICL group (p < 0.01) and in the SMILE group (p < 0.01). The most common visual complaint was halo after ICL and starburst after SMILE. There was no correlation between HOAs and visual complaints (p > 0.05).ConclusionEvolution Implantable Collamer Lens provides comparable safety, efficacy, long-term visual stability, and high patient satisfaction when compared to SMILE in correcting low myopia. EVO-ICL could be a favorable alternative for low myopia.Key messages What was known?•Visual outcomes of Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO-ICL) versus small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for correction of mild myopia remain unclear.What this paper adds?•Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO-ICL) provides comparable safety, efficacy, long-term visual stability, and high patient satisfaction when compared to small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in correcting low myopia.•The most common visual complaint was halo after ICL and starburst after SMILE.

show abstract