Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation after laser in situ keratomileusis.

IF 1.3 4区计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS

Distributed Computing Pub Date : 2022-04-11 DOI:10.1186/s40662-022-00282-6

Kazutaka Kamiya, Kimiya Shimizu, Akihito Igarashi, Yoshihiro Kitazawa, Takashi Kojima, Tomoaki Nakamura, Kazuo Ichikawa, Sachiko Fukuoka, Kahoko Fujimoto

{"title":"Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation after laser in situ keratomileusis.","authors":"Kazutaka Kamiya, Kimiya Shimizu, Akihito Igarashi, Yoshihiro Kitazawa, Takashi Kojima, Tomoaki Nakamura, Kazuo Ichikawa, Sachiko Fukuoka, Kahoko Fujimoto","doi":"10.1186/s40662-022-00282-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To assess the multicenter outcomes of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation with a central hole (EVO-ICL, STAAR Surgical) for patients undergoing previous laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).Methods: This case series enrolled 31 eyes of 21 consecutive patients undergoing EVO-ICL implantation to correct residual refractive errors after LASIK at 7 nationwide major surgical sites. We investigated safety, efficacy, predictability, stability, and adverse events at 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, and at the final visit.Results: The mean observation period was 1.6 ± 1.8 years. Uncorrected and corrected visual acuities were - 0.14 ± 0.11 and - 0.22 ± 0.09 logMAR at 6 months postoperatively. At 6 months postoperatively, 81% and 100% of eyes were within ± 0.5 D and ± 1.0 D, respectively, of the targeted correction. We found neither significant manifest refraction changes of 0.05 ± 0.38 D from 1 week to 6 months nor apparent intraoperative or postoperative complications in any case.Conclusions: Our multicenter study confirmed that the EVO-ICL provided good outcomes in safety, efficacy, predictability, and stability, even in post-LASIK eyes. Therefore, EVO-ICL implantation may be a viable surgical option, even for correcting residual refractive errors after LASIK. Trial registration University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (000045295).","PeriodicalId":50569,"journal":{"name":"Distributed Computing","volume":"1 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9008970/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Distributed Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-022-00282-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To assess the multicenter outcomes of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation with a central hole (EVO-ICL, STAAR Surgical) for patients undergoing previous laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

Methods: This case series enrolled 31 eyes of 21 consecutive patients undergoing EVO-ICL implantation to correct residual refractive errors after LASIK at 7 nationwide major surgical sites. We investigated safety, efficacy, predictability, stability, and adverse events at 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, and at the final visit.

Results: The mean observation period was 1.6 ± 1.8 years. Uncorrected and corrected visual acuities were - 0.14 ± 0.11 and - 0.22 ± 0.09 logMAR at 6 months postoperatively. At 6 months postoperatively, 81% and 100% of eyes were within ± 0.5 D and ± 1.0 D, respectively, of the targeted correction. We found neither significant manifest refraction changes of 0.05 ± 0.38 D from 1 week to 6 months nor apparent intraoperative or postoperative complications in any case.

Conclusions: Our multicenter study confirmed that the EVO-ICL provided good outcomes in safety, efficacy, predictability, and stability, even in post-LASIK eyes. Therefore, EVO-ICL implantation may be a viable surgical option, even for correcting residual refractive errors after LASIK. Trial registration University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (000045295).

查看原文本刊更多论文

激光原位角膜磨镶术后的后房型人工晶体植入术。

背景：目的：评估为既往接受过激光原位角膜磨镶术（LASIK）的患者实施带中央孔的后房型人工晶体植入术（EVO-ICL，STAAR Surgical）的多中心疗效：本病例系列共收集了 21 位连续接受 EVO-ICL 植入术的患者的 31 只眼睛，这些患者在全国 7 个主要手术地点接受了 LASIK 术后残余屈光不正矫正术。我们调查了术后1周、1、3、6个月和最后一次就诊时的安全性、有效性、可预测性、稳定性和不良事件：平均观察期为 1.6 ± 1.8 年。术后 6 个月时，未矫正和矫正视力分别为 - 0.14 ± 0.11 和 - 0.22 ± 0.09 logMAR。术后 6 个月时，分别有 81% 和 100% 的眼睛视力在目标矫正度数的 ± 0.5 D 和 ± 1.0 D 范围内。我们发现，从 1 周到 6 个月，屈光度数的变化均不明显（0.05 ± 0.38 D），也没有发现明显的术中或术后并发症：我们的多中心研究证实，EVO-ICL 在安全性、有效性、可预测性和稳定性方面都有很好的效果，即使是 LASIK 术后的眼睛也不例外。因此，EVO-ICL 植入术可能是一种可行的手术选择，甚至可以用于矫正 LASIK 术后的残余屈光不正。试验注册大学医院医学信息网临床试验注册表（000045295）。

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

Distributed Computing 工程技术-计算机：理论方法

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The international journal Distributed Computing provides a forum for original and significant contributions to the theory, design, specification and implementation of distributed systems. Topics covered by the journal include but are not limited to: design and analysis of distributed algorithms; multiprocessor and multi-core architectures and algorithms; synchronization protocols and concurrent programming; distributed operating systems and middleware; fault-tolerance, reliability and availability; architectures and protocols for communication networks and peer-to-peer systems; security in distributed computing, cryptographic protocols; mobile, sensor, and ad hoc networks; internet applications; concurrency theory; specification, semantics, verification, and testing of distributed systems. In general, only original papers will be considered. By virtue of submitting a manuscript to the journal, the authors attest that it has not been published or submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere. However, papers previously presented in conference proceedings may be submitted in enhanced form. If a paper has appeared previously, in any form, the authors must clearly indicate this and provide an account of the differences between the previously appeared form and the submission.