Cargando…

Comparison of Three Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Correction of Myopia

PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes and complications of three different types of phakic intraocular lenses (PIOLs), for correction of moderate to high myopia. METHODS: We reviewed 112 myopic eyes undergoing PIOL implantation using Artisan (40 eyes), Artiflex (36 eyes), and implantable collamer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karimian, Farid, Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza, Hashemian, Seyed Javad, Hashemloo, Ali, Jafari, Mohammad Ebrahim, Yaseri, Mehdi, Ghahari, Elham, Akbarian, Shadi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329701/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25709766
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2008-322X.150805
_version_ 1782357477933711360
author Karimian, Farid
Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza
Hashemian, Seyed Javad
Hashemloo, Ali
Jafari, Mohammad Ebrahim
Yaseri, Mehdi
Ghahari, Elham
Akbarian, Shadi
author_facet Karimian, Farid
Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza
Hashemian, Seyed Javad
Hashemloo, Ali
Jafari, Mohammad Ebrahim
Yaseri, Mehdi
Ghahari, Elham
Akbarian, Shadi
author_sort Karimian, Farid
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes and complications of three different types of phakic intraocular lenses (PIOLs), for correction of moderate to high myopia. METHODS: We reviewed 112 myopic eyes undergoing PIOL implantation using Artisan (40 eyes), Artiflex (36 eyes), and implantable collamer lens (ICL, 36 eyes). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), pachymetry, corneal endothelial cell (CEC) loss, and higher order aberrations (HOA) were compared. RESULTS: Mean follow-up period was 30 ± 11 months. Preoperatively, spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error was −11.6 ± 3.7, −9.59 ± 1.97, and −12.3 ± 4.8 D in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively. SE was comparable among the study groups at final follow-up (P = 0.237). Mean astigmatic reduction was 0.31 ± 0.72, 0.45 ± 0.62, and 0.0 ± 0.57 in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively (P = 0.007). Emmetropia (±1 D) was achieved in 60%, 91.7% and 77.8% of eyes in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively, the difference was significant between the Artisan and Artiflex groups (P = 0.017). BCVA improvement more than one line occurred in 25%, 19.4% and 38.9% of eyes (P = 0.158); pachymetric changes were minimal with no difference among the three groups (P = 0.754), and mean CEC loss was 10 ± 9%, 9 ± 6% and 9 ± 10% in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively (P = 0.694). HOAs (P = 0.039), vertical trefoil (P = 0.032) and spherical aberration (P = 0.001) were higher with Artisan group as compared to ICL. Total aberrations (P = 0.028) and spherical aberration (P = 0.001) was also higher with Artisan group as compared to Artiflex. CONCLUSION: Visual and refractive outcomes were comparable with Artisan, Artiflex and ICL. In terms of HOAs and quality of vision, ICL and Artiflex seem to be better choices in highly myopic eyes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4329701
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43297012015-02-23 Comparison of Three Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Correction of Myopia Karimian, Farid Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza Hashemian, Seyed Javad Hashemloo, Ali Jafari, Mohammad Ebrahim Yaseri, Mehdi Ghahari, Elham Akbarian, Shadi J Ophthalmic Vis Res Original Article PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes and complications of three different types of phakic intraocular lenses (PIOLs), for correction of moderate to high myopia. METHODS: We reviewed 112 myopic eyes undergoing PIOL implantation using Artisan (40 eyes), Artiflex (36 eyes), and implantable collamer lens (ICL, 36 eyes). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), pachymetry, corneal endothelial cell (CEC) loss, and higher order aberrations (HOA) were compared. RESULTS: Mean follow-up period was 30 ± 11 months. Preoperatively, spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error was −11.6 ± 3.7, −9.59 ± 1.97, and −12.3 ± 4.8 D in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively. SE was comparable among the study groups at final follow-up (P = 0.237). Mean astigmatic reduction was 0.31 ± 0.72, 0.45 ± 0.62, and 0.0 ± 0.57 in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively (P = 0.007). Emmetropia (±1 D) was achieved in 60%, 91.7% and 77.8% of eyes in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively, the difference was significant between the Artisan and Artiflex groups (P = 0.017). BCVA improvement more than one line occurred in 25%, 19.4% and 38.9% of eyes (P = 0.158); pachymetric changes were minimal with no difference among the three groups (P = 0.754), and mean CEC loss was 10 ± 9%, 9 ± 6% and 9 ± 10% in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively (P = 0.694). HOAs (P = 0.039), vertical trefoil (P = 0.032) and spherical aberration (P = 0.001) were higher with Artisan group as compared to ICL. Total aberrations (P = 0.028) and spherical aberration (P = 0.001) was also higher with Artisan group as compared to Artiflex. CONCLUSION: Visual and refractive outcomes were comparable with Artisan, Artiflex and ICL. In terms of HOAs and quality of vision, ICL and Artiflex seem to be better choices in highly myopic eyes. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4329701/ /pubmed/25709766 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2008-322X.150805 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Karimian, Farid
Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza
Hashemian, Seyed Javad
Hashemloo, Ali
Jafari, Mohammad Ebrahim
Yaseri, Mehdi
Ghahari, Elham
Akbarian, Shadi
Comparison of Three Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Correction of Myopia
title Comparison of Three Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Correction of Myopia
title_full Comparison of Three Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Correction of Myopia
title_fullStr Comparison of Three Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Correction of Myopia
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Three Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Correction of Myopia
title_short Comparison of Three Phakic Intraocular Lenses for Correction of Myopia
title_sort comparison of three phakic intraocular lenses for correction of myopia
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329701/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25709766
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2008-322X.150805
work_keys_str_mv AT karimianfarid comparisonofthreephakicintraocularlensesforcorrectionofmyopia
AT baradaranrafiialireza comparisonofthreephakicintraocularlensesforcorrectionofmyopia
AT hashemianseyedjavad comparisonofthreephakicintraocularlensesforcorrectionofmyopia
AT hashemlooali comparisonofthreephakicintraocularlensesforcorrectionofmyopia
AT jafarimohammadebrahim comparisonofthreephakicintraocularlensesforcorrectionofmyopia
AT yaserimehdi comparisonofthreephakicintraocularlensesforcorrectionofmyopia
AT ghaharielham comparisonofthreephakicintraocularlensesforcorrectionofmyopia
AT akbarianshadi comparisonofthreephakicintraocularlensesforcorrectionofmyopia