4.4 Article

Toric implantable collamer lens for moderate to high myopic astigmatism: 3-year follow-up

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-012-2172-8

Keywords

Toric implantable collamer lens; ICL; High myopic astigmatism; Surgically-induced astigmatism; SIA

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the 3-year clinical outcomes after toric implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation for the management of moderate to high myopic astigmatism. Thirty-four eyes of 20 patients who underwent toric ICL implantation were reviewed. All eyes completed 3-year follow-up. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance LogMAR visual acuities, refraction, endothelial cell density (ECD), and surgical complications were evaluated. Vectorial analysis of astigmatic correction was also done. A significant improvement in UDVA, CDVA, manifest spherical and cylindrical refraction was observed at 1 week and remained stable after 3 years. Twenty-six eyes (76.5 %) gained lines of CDVA, and two eyes (5.9 %) showed a loss of 1 line of CDVA. The spherical equivalent (SE) was within +/- 0.50 D of emmetropia in 18 eyes (52.9 %) and within +/- 1.00 D in 28 eyes (82.4 %). Differences between target-induced astigmatism (TIA) and surgically-induced astigmatism (SIA) were statistically significant (p < 0.01), and a trend to undercorrection of the refractive astigmatism was present after 3 years. The magnitude of flattening effect (FE) was found to be significantly lower than the magnitude of TIA (p < 0.01). The magnitude of the torque vector was always positive, with a value below 0.50 D in all cases. No vision-threatening complications were observed during the follow-up. Toric ICL implantation is an effective and safe surgical option that provides a relatively predictable and stable refractive correction of myopic astigmatism. Further improvements are needed to minimize the degree of undercorrection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available