Comparison of patient outcomes after implantation of Visian toric implantable collamer lens and iris-fixated toric phakic intraocular lens

Abstract

Purpose We compared visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of Visian toric implantable collamer lenses (toric ICLs) and iris-fixated toric pIOLs (toric Artisans). Patients and methods A comparative retrospective analysis was performed. Toric ICLs were implanted into 30 eyes of 18 patients, and toric Artisans into 31 eyes of 22 recipients. We measured the logarithms of the minimum angle of resolution of uncorrected visual acuity (logMAR UCVA), logMAR of best spectaclecorrected corrected VA (logMAR BSCVA), MR, SE, and astigmatism (by the power vector method) before surgery and 1, 3, and 6 months thereafter. Differences between patients receiving each type of lens were compared by using a mixed model of repeated measures. Results Visual improvements were evident after operation in both groups. By comparing the attempted to the achieved SE values, we were able to confirm that correction of refractive error was similar in both groups. However, the logMAR UCVA was significantly higher in the toric ICL group at all postoperative time points. Although manifest cylinder power and astigmatism (calculated by using the power vector method) gradually decreased in the toric ICL group, cylinder power 1 month postoperatively increased from À2.62 to À2.75 D; astigmatism was also increased at this time in the toric Artisan group. Conclusion The two tested toric pIOLs were similar in terms of the ability to correct refractive error, as assessed 3 months postoperatively. However toric ICLs corrected astigmatism more rapidly and safely. Notably, the large difference in astigmatism level between the two groups 1 month postoperatively indicates that toric ICLs are more effective when used to correct astigmatism.

Implantable Collamer Lens Versus Iris-Fixed Phakic Intraocular Lens Implantation to Correct Myopia: A Meta-Analysis

“…No significant difference was observed between groups (RR = 1.20; 95% CI, 0.24 to 6.00; P  = .82; I 2  = 37.5%) (Figure 6). Omitting Lee et al [33], this result was similar (RR = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.23 to 10.12; P  = .66; I 2  = 45.1%). By Begg's and Egger's tests, there was no evidence of substantial publication bias ( P  = .73, P  = .08).…”

Iris-fixated phakic intraocular lens implantation after retinal detachment surgery: Long-term clinical results

“…31,32 We implanted the Implantable Collamer Lens pIOL in patients with previous RD and found favorable outcomes without serious complications (data not shown). As comparative clinical studies of the Artisan/toric Artisan pIOLs versus Implantable Collamer Lens/toric Implantable Collamer Lens pIOLs were similar in terms of the ability to correct refractive error, 33,34 the Implantable Collamer Lens pIOL is expected to be a useful option.…”

Phakic IOLs: Sulcus Versus Iris-Claw Versus Angle-Supported: Complications and Outcomes

“…Iris-claw fixated pIOLs are especially attractive as toric models because they are more rotationally secure in the anterior chamber are than haptic supported pIOLs. However, a toric sulcus pIOL produced significantly better uncorrected visual acuity than an iris-fixated pIOL in a recent study, which is discussed below in the comparison section [15].…”

“…Hassaballa et al [22] showed that the Visian ICL sulcus pIOL and Artisan iris-claw pIOL display equal and comparable safety, predictability, and efficacy. Lee et al [15] compared visual outcomes in patients receiving one of two toric pIOLs, the Visian toric ICL or the Artisan toric pIOL. They found similar correction of refractive error with both lenses, but logMAR uncorrected visual acuity was significantly higher in the Visian toric ICL group at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.…”