Visual outcomes with implantable Collamer lens versus small incision lenticule extraction in moderate-high myopia: A pilot study.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-10 DOI:10.4103/IJO.IJO_908_24
Rajesh Sinha, Juhi Daga, Pranita Sahay, Vinay Gupta, Tushar Agarwal, Namrata Sharma, Prafulla K Maharana, Sudarshan K Khokhar, Jeewan S Titiyal
{"title":"Visual outcomes with implantable Collamer lens versus small incision lenticule extraction in moderate-high myopia: A pilot study.","authors":"Rajesh Sinha, Juhi Daga, Pranita Sahay, Vinay Gupta, Tushar Agarwal, Namrata Sharma, Prafulla K Maharana, Sudarshan K Khokhar, Jeewan S Titiyal","doi":"10.4103/IJO.IJO_908_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the visual outcomes of implantable Collamer lens (ICL) with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in cases of moderate-high myopia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective comparative study was conducted on 60 eyes of 30 patients with moderate-high myopia (-3D to -8D with astigmatism ≤1 D) at a tertiary eye care center. Patients underwent either SMILE or ICL in both eyes and had a postoperative follow-up of 1 year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The manifest refractive spherical equivalent was -5.22 ± 1.05 D and -5.4 ± 1.17 D in the SMILE and ICL groups, respectively ( P = 0.53). The mean sphere and cylinder were comparable between the groups. The mean uncorrected visual acuity improved from 1.18 ± 0.19 logMAR to 0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR in SMILE and 1.14 ± 0.25 logMAR to 0.011 ± 0.04 logMAR in the ICL group. The efficacy for SMILE was 83.3% and that for ICL was 93.3%. Safety and predictability (±0.5D) for both was 100%. A significant increase was observed in ocular aberration with a decrease in modular transfer function in the eyes that underwent SMILE, whereas no significant change in the eyes that underwent ICL. A significant difference was observed in all parameters of ocular aberration except corneal trefoil, corneal astigmatism, and PSF between the two groups at the final follow-up. The contrast sensitivity at final follow-up was higher in ICL cases when compared to SMILE. The quality of vision (QoV) score suggested a better QoV with ICL; however, the difference was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both SMILE and ICL are safe in patients with moderate-high myopia. The efficacy, contrast sensitivity, and postoperative ocular aberration profile are better in cases undergoing ICL.</p>","PeriodicalId":13329,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"115-121"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_908_24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the visual outcomes of implantable Collamer lens (ICL) with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in cases of moderate-high myopia.

Methods: A prospective comparative study was conducted on 60 eyes of 30 patients with moderate-high myopia (-3D to -8D with astigmatism ≤1 D) at a tertiary eye care center. Patients underwent either SMILE or ICL in both eyes and had a postoperative follow-up of 1 year.

Results: The manifest refractive spherical equivalent was -5.22 ± 1.05 D and -5.4 ± 1.17 D in the SMILE and ICL groups, respectively ( P = 0.53). The mean sphere and cylinder were comparable between the groups. The mean uncorrected visual acuity improved from 1.18 ± 0.19 logMAR to 0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR in SMILE and 1.14 ± 0.25 logMAR to 0.011 ± 0.04 logMAR in the ICL group. The efficacy for SMILE was 83.3% and that for ICL was 93.3%. Safety and predictability (±0.5D) for both was 100%. A significant increase was observed in ocular aberration with a decrease in modular transfer function in the eyes that underwent SMILE, whereas no significant change in the eyes that underwent ICL. A significant difference was observed in all parameters of ocular aberration except corneal trefoil, corneal astigmatism, and PSF between the two groups at the final follow-up. The contrast sensitivity at final follow-up was higher in ICL cases when compared to SMILE. The quality of vision (QoV) score suggested a better QoV with ICL; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Both SMILE and ICL are safe in patients with moderate-high myopia. The efficacy, contrast sensitivity, and postoperative ocular aberration profile are better in cases undergoing ICL.

在中高度近视患者中,植入式科拉莫晶体与小切口皮瓣摘除术的视觉效果对比:试点研究。
目的:比较植入式角膜塑形镜(ICL)与小切口人工晶体摘除术(SMILE)对中高度近视患者的视觉效果:在一家三级眼科医疗中心对30名中度高度近视(-3D至-8D,散光≤1D)患者的60只眼睛进行了前瞻性比较研究。患者双眼均接受了SMILE或ICL手术,术后随访1年:SMILE组和ICL组的屈光球面等效分别为-5.22 ± 1.05 D和-5.4 ± 1.17 D(P = 0.53)。两组的平均球面和柱面相当。SMILE组的平均未矫正视力从1.18 ± 0.19 logMAR提高到0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR,ICL组的平均未矫正视力从1.14 ± 0.25 logMAR提高到0.011 ± 0.04 logMAR。SMILE的有效率为83.3%,ICL为93.3%。两者的安全性和可预测性(±0.5D)均为 100%。在接受 SMILE 治疗的双眼中,观察到眼球像差明显增加,模块传递函数下降,而接受 ICL 治疗的双眼则无明显变化。在最后随访时,除角膜三叶镜、角膜散光和 PSF 外,两组患者的所有眼球像差参数均有明显差异。最后随访时,ICL 患者的对比敏感度高于 SMILE 患者。视力质量(QoV)评分显示,ICL的视力质量更好,但差异无统计学意义:结论:SMILE 和 ICL 对中高度近视患者都是安全的。结论:SMILE 和 ICL 对中高度近视患者都是安全的,接受 ICL 治疗的患者的疗效、对比敏感度和术后眼球像差都更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
19.40%
发文量
1963
审稿时长
38 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Ophthalmology covers clinical, experimental, basic science research and translational research studies related to medical, ethical and social issues in field of ophthalmology and vision science. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信