Three-year follow-up of subjective vault following myopic implantable collamer lens implantation

Abstract

Decrease in subjective vault after ICL implantation became statistically significant after the third month postoperatively. Several patients and lens-related factors have been identified as potential predictors of ASC or acute increase in IOP. A tight follow-up during the critical post-operative period should be considered in those particular cases.

Fluid dynamics simulation of aqueous humour in a posterior-chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central perforation

“…However, the quantity of flow in the Hole-ICL was large in a channel running through the hole in the centre, because the distance between the iris and the ICL was narrow. Therefore, the circulation of aqueous humour to the anterior surface of the Several causes of secondary cataracts in patients with conventional ICL have been postulated, including aqueous humour circulation [5,6], pIOL-crystalline lens contact [7,8], low vaulting between the ICL and the crystalline lens [9][10][11], the decreased anterior chamber depth occurring with age [12], myopia [13], and surgical trauma [14]. In particular, Fujisawa et al [5] and Shiratani et al [6] performed histopathological studies that revealed the importance of aqueous humour circulation in the vault between the ICL and the crystalline lens in preventing secondary cataracts.…”

Observing implantable collamer lens dislocation by panoramic ultrasound biomicroscopy

“…Inclusion criteria for ICL implantation consist of corrected distance visual acuity of 30/50 or better; the meanpreoperative spherical equivalent À 9.08 ± 2.04 diopters (D), and the central anterior chamber depth (ACD)Z2.8 mm 1 . All eyes were implanted with the myopic ICL (ICMV4 model) at the Eye Hospital of China Medical University (Shenyang, Liaoning, China) from July 2007 to September 2011.…”

The posterior chamber phakic refractive lens (PRL): a review

“…16 There are a number of studies evaluating the outcomes obtained with the different models of ICL, and therefore there is a complete characterization of the refractive outcomes and complications resulting from the implantation of this pIOL. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The current review will focus on the other available posterior chamber pIOL, the PRL, which has been very recently removed from the market. This pIOL was initially developed in 1987, now in its third generation, and was conceived to be implanted in the posterior chamber through an autosealing corneal incision.…”