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.

Introduction: Implantable collamer lens have been used widely worldwide, and have been accepted by more and more doctors and patients due to good safety, stability, and effectiveness. However, there is still a problem of crystal rotation. The large angle rotation (over 10°) would weaken the original astigmatism correction effect and even induce irregular astigmatism, seriously affecting the visual quality of patients. Herein, we reported a case who had 2 times of crystal rotations after toric implantable collamer lens (TICL) implantation. Patient concerns: The patient was a 38-year-old man who underwent TICL implantation for the correction of high myopic astigmatism in eyes. He presented a sudden decrease in the visual acuity (VA) of the left eye 4 months after the TICL implantation. The uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was 8/20 (refraction, +2.25 −5.25 × 68). Diagnosis: Rotation of TICL was diagnosed. The toric marks with a rotation of 75° counter-clockwise from the original position were observed. Interventions: The TICL was re-set to the original position, leading to the UCVA of 12/20 in the left eye (refraction, −0.00 −0.75 × 131), with the vaulting of 589 μm. Ten months after the TICL relocation, the patient again presented a sudden decrease in the VA of the left eye, with the UCVA of 2/20 (refraction, +2.25 −5.00 × 66). Again, the toric marks with a rotation of 75° counter-clockwise from the original position was observed, just at the same position as the last rotation. This time, the TICL was removed. The axis and power were recalculated, and a new TICL was implanted, with the rotation of 73° counter-clockwise from the horizontal line of the temporal side. Outcomes: The patient obtained a final UCVA of 12/20 in the left eye (refraction, +0.50 −0.50 × 26), which remained stable in the 6-month follow-up period, with the vaulting of 602 μm. Lessons: Rotation is a common complication after TICL surgery. Relocation or replacement of TICL are safe and efficient ways to recover VA due to TICL rotation.

We report the case of a 26-year-old man under treatment with the antidepressant drugs olanzapine and buspirone, which are associated with anticholinergic effects, in whom an implantable collamer lens (ICL) became spontaneously dislocated. ICL dislocation and pupil capture occurred 10 months postoperatively. The lens was successfully repositioned. The possible role of these drugs in the dislocation of the ICL is discussed.

Background Few studies have reported the visual outcomes of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) for myopia correction. This study aims to compare the visual quality and corneal wavefront aberrations after SMILE and LASEK for low-myopia correction. Methods In this prospective study, we included 29 eyes of 29 patients who received SMILE and 23 eyes of 23 patients who received LASEK between June 2018 and January 2019. The following measurements were assessed: uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, corneal wavefront aberrations, and subjective visual quality. All patients were followed up for two years. Results All procedures were uneventful. An efficacy index of 1.19 ± 0.17 was established in the SMILE group and 1.23 ± 0.20 in the LASEK group. No eyes lost more than two lines of CDVA. We found that 93% (27/29) of the treated eyes in the SMILE group and 91% (21/23) in the LASEK group had spherical equivalent (SE) within ± 0.25D. The increases in the total corneal spherical aberration and the corneal front spherical aberration were lower in the SMILE group than in the LASEK group (P < 0.01). In contrast, the increases in the total corneal vertical coma and the corneal front vertical coma in the SMILE group were greater than those in the LASEK group (P < 0.01). Conclusion Both SMILE and LASEK have good safety, stability, and patient-reported satisfaction for low myopia. SMILE induced less corneal spherical aberration but greater vertical coma than LASEK.