Use of low-vault posterior chamber collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of myopia: a 3-year follow-up.
Adolescent
Adult
Anterior Eye Segment
/ diagnostic imaging
Collagen
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Lens Implantation, Intraocular
/ methods
Male
Myopia
/ physiopathology
Phakic Intraocular Lenses
Polymers
Prospective Studies
Prosthesis Design
Refraction, Ocular
/ physiology
Time Factors
Tomography, Optical Coherence
Treatment Outcome
Visual Acuity
Young Adult
Myopia
Phakic intraocular lenses
Vault
Journal
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie
ISSN: 1435-702X
Titre abrégé: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8205248
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
02
12
2018
accepted:
19
04
2019
revised:
16
04
2019
pubmed:
28
5
2019
medline:
27
6
2019
entrez:
28
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) models have indicated an association between cataract formation and inadequate vaulting. In this study, the efficacy and safety of low-vault posterior chamber pIOLs in the correction of myopia were examined over 3 years. From 316 patients undergoing surgery, 14 eyes with a low vault (≤ 150 μm) were examined from 14 patients. After implanting the Visian Implantable Collamer pIOL for the correction of myopia (moderate and high), the pIOL vault, endothelial cell loss, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected DVA (CDVA), and detrimental events were examined over 3 years. Based on the findings, the mean spherical equivalent reduced from - 8.15 ± 3.29 before surgery to - 1.02 ± 0.75 diopters 3 years after the surgery. In terms of visual outcomes, the mean UDVA (Log MAR) significantly increased from 0.95 ± 037 to 0.27 ± 0.28, and the mean CDVA also increased from 0.99 ± 0.11 to 0.06 ± 0.08 (P < 0.05). The mean indices of safety and efficacy were respectively 1.075 and 0.748. The eyes lost not more than two visual acuity lines. Based on the findings, 82% achieved 0.80 or better CDVA, while the total endothelial cell loss was 7.96% during 3 years. Overall, vision-threatening conditions were not reported. The introduced pIOL can be considered a safe and efficient method for myopia at moderate to high levels.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) models have indicated an association between cataract formation and inadequate vaulting. In this study, the efficacy and safety of low-vault posterior chamber pIOLs in the correction of myopia were examined over 3 years.
METHODS
METHODS
From 316 patients undergoing surgery, 14 eyes with a low vault (≤ 150 μm) were examined from 14 patients. After implanting the Visian Implantable Collamer pIOL for the correction of myopia (moderate and high), the pIOL vault, endothelial cell loss, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected DVA (CDVA), and detrimental events were examined over 3 years.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on the findings, the mean spherical equivalent reduced from - 8.15 ± 3.29 before surgery to - 1.02 ± 0.75 diopters 3 years after the surgery. In terms of visual outcomes, the mean UDVA (Log MAR) significantly increased from 0.95 ± 037 to 0.27 ± 0.28, and the mean CDVA also increased from 0.99 ± 0.11 to 0.06 ± 0.08 (P < 0.05). The mean indices of safety and efficacy were respectively 1.075 and 0.748. The eyes lost not more than two visual acuity lines. Based on the findings, 82% achieved 0.80 or better CDVA, while the total endothelial cell loss was 7.96% during 3 years. Overall, vision-threatening conditions were not reported.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The introduced pIOL can be considered a safe and efficient method for myopia at moderate to high levels.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31131424
doi: 10.1007/s00417-019-04336-9
pii: 10.1007/s00417-019-04336-9
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polymers
0
Collagen
9007-34-5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1555-1560Références
Ophthalmology. 2003 Feb;110(2):255-66
pubmed: 12578765
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 May;29(5):918-24
pubmed: 12781276
Vision Res. 2003 Oct;43(22):2363-75
pubmed: 12962993
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Mar;30(3):576-83
pubmed: 15050252
Ophthalmology. 2004 Sep;111(9):1683-92
pubmed: 15350323
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Nov;30(11):2277-83
pubmed: 15519075
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Dec;31(12):2329-33
pubmed: 16473226
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007 Jan;245(1):114-22
pubmed: 16639622
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Sep;33(9):1579-84
pubmed: 17720073
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 May;246(5):719-28
pubmed: 18299877
J Refract Surg. 2009 Mar;25(3):259-64
pubmed: 19370820
J Refract Surg. 2009 Aug;25(8):730-8
pubmed: 19714798
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010 Jan;21(1):39-44
pubmed: 19890209
Ophthalmology. 2010 Jun;117(6):1245-50
pubmed: 20163862
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010 Dec;248(12):1827-35
pubmed: 20333528
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Apr;36(4):568-76
pubmed: 20362847
Ophthalmology. 2010 Aug;117(8):1506-11
pubmed: 20363503
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Aug;36(8):1349-57
pubmed: 20656159
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Oct;36(10):1768-74
pubmed: 20870124
J Refract Surg. 2011 Oct;27(10):765-76
pubmed: 21710954
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Dec;39(12):1859-63
pubmed: 24427793
Br J Ophthalmol. 2018 Oct 12;:null
pubmed: 30315132
J Refract Surg. 1998 May-Jun;14(3):306-11
pubmed: 9641421