Toric versus Standard Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation for Low Myopic Astigmatism: A 12-Month Retrospective Study.

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Pub Date : 2026-09-17 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S610499
Haiyan He, Zhanchi Hu, Runhua Peng, Liangqi Feng, Chi Xiao
{"title":"Toric versus Standard Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation for Low Myopic Astigmatism: A 12-Month Retrospective Study.","authors":"Haiyan He, Zhanchi Hu, Runhua Peng, Liangqi Feng, Chi Xiao","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S610499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implantable collamer lens (ICL) and toric ICL (TICL) have shown effectiveness for myopic and astigmatic patients. This study aims to compare the visual and refractive outcomes of TICL and ICL implantation for low myopic astigmatism.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective, non-consecutive, and non-randomized study included 124 eyes of 124 patients with low myopic astigmatism who underwent TICL or ICL implantation. Visual acuity, refractive outcomes, visual quality, and ocular parameters were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months postoperatively. The surgical results were reported using standard graphs and double-angle astigmatism vector analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups demonstrated excellent safety (TICL: 1.28±0.18; ICL: 1.19±0.16) and efficacy (TICL: 1.21±0.19; ICL: 1.09±0.16), with high predictability for spherical equivalent refraction (<i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> of 0.980 and 0.984, respectively) and stable refractive outcomes at 12 months. UDVA was marginally better in the TICL group (-0.08±0.07 vs -0.03±0.06, p<0.001). Crucially, TICL yielded significantly lower residual astigmatism (-0.16±0.28 D vs -0.33±0.40 D, p < 0.05) and a smaller prediction error on vector analysis. Despite these refractive differences, objective visual quality metrics improved significantly in both groups, with no statistically significant intergroup differences observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both TICL and ICL are safe and effective for low myopic astigmatism (0.75-1.0 D). Although TICL yielded significantly lower residual astigmatism and higher uncorrected visual acuity than ICL, the nonrandomized design and selection bias necessitate caution in claiming comparative superiority. Toric correction for such low astigmatism should be individualized, integrating clinical benefits with economic and safety factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"20 ","pages":"610499"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13592337/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S610499","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implantable collamer lens (ICL) and toric ICL (TICL) have shown effectiveness for myopic and astigmatic patients. This study aims to compare the visual and refractive outcomes of TICL and ICL implantation for low myopic astigmatism.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective, non-consecutive, and non-randomized study included 124 eyes of 124 patients with low myopic astigmatism who underwent TICL or ICL implantation. Visual acuity, refractive outcomes, visual quality, and ocular parameters were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months postoperatively. The surgical results were reported using standard graphs and double-angle astigmatism vector analysis.

Results: Both groups demonstrated excellent safety (TICL: 1.28±0.18; ICL: 1.19±0.16) and efficacy (TICL: 1.21±0.19; ICL: 1.09±0.16), with high predictability for spherical equivalent refraction (R 2 of 0.980 and 0.984, respectively) and stable refractive outcomes at 12 months. UDVA was marginally better in the TICL group (-0.08±0.07 vs -0.03±0.06, p<0.001). Crucially, TICL yielded significantly lower residual astigmatism (-0.16±0.28 D vs -0.33±0.40 D, p < 0.05) and a smaller prediction error on vector analysis. Despite these refractive differences, objective visual quality metrics improved significantly in both groups, with no statistically significant intergroup differences observed.

Conclusions: Both TICL and ICL are safe and effective for low myopic astigmatism (0.75-1.0 D). Although TICL yielded significantly lower residual astigmatism and higher uncorrected visual acuity than ICL, the nonrandomized design and selection bias necessitate caution in claiming comparative superiority. Toric correction for such low astigmatism should be individualized, integrating clinical benefits with economic and safety factors.

低近视散光的环形与标准人工晶状体植入术:12个月的回顾性研究。
背景:人工晶状体(ICL)和环形晶状体(TICL)在近视和散光患者中的应用效果较好。本研究旨在比较TICL和ICL植入术治疗低近视散光的视力和屈光效果。方法:本研究为单中心、回顾性、非连续、非随机研究,纳入124例低近视散光患者的124只眼,这些患者接受了TICL或ICL植入术。在基线、术后3个月和12个月评估视力、屈光结果、视力质量和眼部参数。采用标准图和双角散光矢量分析报告手术结果。结果:两组均表现出良好的安全性(TICL: 1.28±0.18;ICL: 1.19±0.16)和有效性(TICL: 1.21±0.19;ICL: 1.09±0.16),具有较高的可预测性(r2分别为0.980和0.984)和12个月稳定的屈光结果。结论:TICL组UDVA略优于ICL组(-0.08±0.07 vs -0.03±0.06)。结论:TICL和ICL治疗低近视散光(0.75 ~ 1.0 D)安全有效。虽然TICL比ICL产生更低的剩余散光和更高的未校正视力,但非随机设计和选择偏倚在声称比较优势时需要谨慎。这种低散光的屈光矫正应该个体化,将临床效益与经济和安全因素结合起来。
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
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书