3.8 Review

A systematic review about the impact of phakic intraocular lenses on accommodation

Journal

JOURNAL OF OPTOMETRY
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 139-145

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2019.08.001

Keywords

Amplitude of accommodation; Phakic intraocular tens; ICL, accommodation facility; Relative accommodation; CASPe

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of Spain [RYC-2016-20471]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phakic intraocular lenses (pIOL) are the main treatment for patients who have either high ametropia or contraindications for laser refractive surgery. The main feature that makes this kind of tenses suitable for its implantation in young adults searching for independence of optical prescription is the conservation of accommodation, since lens extraction is not required. A systematic review has been performed to evaluate the scientific literature on the effect of pIOL implantation on accommodation. Critical assessment of the articles included in the review was achieved using the tool Critical Appraisal Skills Programme in its Spanish form (CASPe). After revising the complete text of 10 articles pre-selected, two quasi-experimental pre-post studies evaluating the outcomes of a specific model of posterior chamber pIOL were included in the systematic review. The CASPe scoring of both studies were 5/11. According to this outcome, the evidence describing the impact of the pIOL implantation on the accommodative function can be defined poor. Some trends are reported as the decrease in the amplitude of accommodation, a decrease positive relative accommodation and improvement of accommodation. However, these results should be confirmed in future controlled studies. (C) 2019 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/1.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available