Menu
Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 17
Intraocular Implantable Collamer Lens with a Central Hole Implantation: Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Outcomes
Authors Wannapanich T, Kasetsuwan N , Reinprayoon U
Received 19 December 2022
Accepted for publication 15 March 2023
Published 24 March 2023 Volume 2023:17 Pages 969—980
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S379856
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
Trakanta Wannapanich,1,* Ngamjit Kasetsuwan,1– 3,* Usanee Reinprayoon1– 3
1Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand; 2Chula Refractive Surgery Center, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand; 3Excellence Center for Cornea and Limbal Stem Cell Transplantation, Department of Ophthalmology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence: Ngamjit Kasetsuwan, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, 1873 Rama 4 Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand, Tel +6622564142, Email [email protected]
Abstract: This review summarizes the available literature and provides updates on the efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes of phakic intraocular lens implantation using implantable collamer lens (ICL), with a focus on newer models with a central port (EVO/EVO+ Visian Implantable Collamer Lens, STAAR Surgical Inc.). All studies included in this review were identified from the PubMed database and were reviewed for relevancy of their topic. Data on hole-ICL implantation performed between October 2018 and October 2022 in 3399 eyes showed a weighted average efficacy index of 1.03 and a weighted average safety index of 1.19 within an average follow-up of 24.7 months. The incidence of complications such as elevated intraocular pressure, cataract, and corneal endothelial cell loss was low. Moreover, both quality of vision and quality of life improved after ICL implantation, confirming the benefits of this procedure. In conclusion, ICL implantation is a promising refractive surgery alternative to laser vision correction with excellent efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes.
Keywords: posterior chamber lens, phakic intraocular lens, Visian ICL, phakic refractive lens, refractive surgery
Introduction
A phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) is a supplementary intraocular lens implanted between the cornea and crystalline lens for correcting refractive error. In patients with moderate-to-high ametropia whose corneas are not suitable or are contraindicated for corneal refractive procedures [eg photorefractive keratectomy, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE)], pIOL implantation could be a promising alternative because it involves minimal alteration to the corneal tissue via a clear corneal incision.1,2 These lenses can be fixed at any angle, enclaved to the iris with a claw, or placed in the posterior chamber at the ciliary sulcus. The main advantage is the preservation of the crystalline lens, thereby ensuring that the natural lens functions are retained. Moreover, these procedures avoid vitreoretinal side effects that occur after clear lens extraction.1 Earlier models including angle-fixated lenses and iris-supported lenses were subsequently phased out because of associated complications including corneal decompensation, uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema syndrome, and progressive erosion of the iris stroma.1 Accordingly, pIOL implantation was developed. With this procedure, in the posterior chamber, the distance between the IOL and corneal endothelium is greater; thus, this type of pIOL could cause less corneal endothelial damage than the earlier models.3
Visian implantable collamer lens (ICL) (STAAR Surgical, Nidau, Switzerland), a posterior chamber pIOL, is used for the correction of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. It is made of collamer, a proprietary hydroxyethyl methacrylate/porcine collagen polymer material containing an ultraviolet chromophore.4,5 This collagen copolymer exhibited good biocompatibility as its postoperative inflammatory activity was minimal.6,7 Moreover, its lower refractive index of 1.45 than those of other posterior chamber pIOL materials could contribute to reduced postoperative dysphotopsia.8–11 The lens is specifically designed to be placed behind the iris in front of the crystalline lens with its haptics resting on the ciliary sulcus. ICL implantation has several advantages, including shorter visual recovery time than surface ablation techniques; comparable or better refractive outcome and stability over PRK,12 LASIK,13–17 and SMILE;17–19 and potential reversibility as the lenses can be explanted if necessary. However, ICL implantation usually requires operations in two sittings, one for each eye, to decrease the risk of postoperative complications such as endophthalmitis, whereas LASIK is usually performed on both eyes in a single day.20,21 Patients should be informed regarding possible risks including intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation, pigment dispersion, crystalline lens opacity, and corneal endothelial cell loss.20 Some of these might lead to irreversible damage and require ICL explantation.22
The interest in ICL began in 1993 when the first ICL prototypes were implanted.1 Later, the lens underwent several design modifications in optic and haptic footplates, posterior lens design, and total diameter. Unlike newer versions, the conventional ICL models (before the V4c model) had two major problems: the requirement of preoperative laser peripheral iridotomy or intraoperative iridectomy to avoid pupillary block and the risk of cataract progression due to poor circulation of aqueous humor.23 The introduction of an aperture in the lens optic was shown to improve aqueous circulation around the crystalline lens in in vitro experiments and pre-clinical studies in animal models.24–27 Compared with multiple peripheral holes, one central hole in the optics may better improve fluid dynamics in an eye implanted with a posterior chamber pIOL.27 Moreover, the addition of a central hole did not cause any significant differences in terms of optical and visual quality compared with those in the models without a central port.28,29 Thus, in the recent ICL models (V4c and later), a central hole measuring 0.36 mm (the KS-Aquaport) is incorporated to allow the circulation of the aqueous fluid through the lens, improving the safety of the procedure.25 Shimizu et al demonstrated that the ICL with a central hole was comparable to the conventional ICL with respect to higher-order aberrations (HOAs), contrast sensitivity change, and long-term refractive outcomes.30,31
The latest ICL models include EVO/EVO+ Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO ICLTM) and EVO/EVO+ Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens. The optic diameter varies with the dioptric power, from 4.9 mm to 5.8 mm and from 5.0 mm to 6.1 mm for the EVO and EVO+ models, respectively. The EVO+ ICL features a larger optic diameter for patients with larger pupils including younger patients. EVO and EVO+ lenses, introduced in 2011 and 2015, respectively, have been reported to be effective and safe. In March 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) approved the EVO/EVO+ Sphere and Toric ICL lenses.32 These lenses are indicated for patients aged 21–45 years for the correction/reduction of myopia in patients with spherical equivalent (SE) ranging from −3.0 D to −20.0 D at the spectacle plane and for the correction/reduction of myopic astigmatism in patients, with SE ranging from −3.0 D to −20.0 D with a cylinder of 1.0 D to 4.0 D at the spectacle plane. A minimum true anterior chamber depth (ACD), measured from the corneal endothelium to the anterior surface of the crystalline lens, of 2.80 to 3.00 mm and a minimum age-appropriate endothelial cell density (ECD) are required for patients to be suitable for lens placement in the ciliary sulcus.33–35 This review summarizes the available literature and provides updates on the efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes of ICL implantation, with a focus on the newer hole-ICL models currently in the market.
Literature Review
All studies included in this narrative review were identified through a PubMed database search using the search terms “implantable collamer lens” and “phakic intraocular lens.” All publications available in English full text were reviewed for relevancy of their topic regarding the efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes of ICL implantation. The exclusion criteria were as follows: studies on pIOL other than Visian ICL (eg Artisan pIOL or Artiflex anterior chamber IOL); studies on former ICL models without a central port, treatment of keratoconus, treatment of amblyopia, treatment of presbyopia, treatment of ametropia following corneal surgery or lenticular surgery; and studies on concomitant refractive procedures. The remaining studies were reviewed in detail. Reference studies cited in selected articles were also reviewed for potential inclusion.
Results
Efficacy
Refractive Outcomes
ICL implantation has been shown to be effective in the correction of myopic astigmatism in wide ranges of SE, including low myopia36–38 and moderate-to-severe myopia.30,31,39–41 Previous studies on toric ICLs have shown comparable efficacy in refractive error correction between toric and non-toric ICLs.42,43 In patients with astigmatism, toric ICLs yielded promising results in correcting astigmatic component and were even more effective in eyes with high astigmatism (≥2 D and ≤4 D) than in those with low astigmatism (≥0.75 D and <2 D).44,45 In a review of data from 1905 eyes by Packer in 2018, the weighted average efficacy index was 1.04 (range, 0.90–1.35) and weighted average postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was 20/19 (logMAR −0.02) (range, 20/12–20/27 (logMAR −0.20 to 0.14)), confirming the good refractive outcomes of the ICL.46 In a recent US-FDA clinical trial evaluating 629 eyes of 327 participants, EVO ICL lenses achieved high levels of UDVA (−0.059 ± 0.10 logMAR), with an efficacy index of 1.06.32
In several studies comparing eyes with a similar degree of preoperative myopia, ICL implantation yielded similar or superior efficacy to corneal laser refractive surgery.6,7,26 Ganesh et al compared three modalities for the correction of low-to-moderate myopic astigmatism and found insignificant differences in postoperative UDVA among toric ICL, femto-LASIK, and SMILE, although the efficacy index was slightly higher in the toric ICL group (1.12, 1.02, and 1.06, respectively).17 Siedlecki et al reported that ICL implantation had superior efficacy index to SMILE in a matched comparative study, although baseline corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was worse in the ICL group.18 We have summarized the literature reporting efficacy data of hole-ICL implantation between October 2018 and October 2022 in Table 1. The weighted average efficacy index was 1.03 and the mean postoperative UDVA was −0.01, which were comparable to previously reported data.46
 |
Table 1 Literature Reporting on Efficacy and Safety of Hole-ICL Implantation Between October 2018 and October 2022 |
Refractive Predictability
Both ICL implantation and laser refractive surgery provided good and comparable predictability outcomes.16,47,48 In one matched comparative study, Siedlecki et al demonstrated that ICL implantation yielded a significantly higher proportion of eyes with ±0.50 D of plano than SMILE (90% vs 73%, P = 0.045) within a mean postoperative follow-up of 27 months, although there was no difference in astigmatic accuracy.18 The predictability of the astigmatism correction was also comparable between toric ICL, femto-LASIK, and SMILE, as demonstrated in 1-year results reported by Ganesh et al.17 Regarding the preoperative degree of myopia, ICL implantation yielded excellent refractive predictability for the correction of both low and moderate-to-high myopia.36,37,49,50 Compared with non-toric ICLs, toric ICLs had comparable predictability results with respect to postoperative SE.42
However, compared with patients with high astigmatism (≥2 D and ≤4 D), patients with low astigmatism (≥0.75 D and <2 D) showed slightly lower SE and percentage of eyes having cylinder rotation within 5°.44 The literature published between October 2018 and October 2022 reporting predictability of refractive correction expressed as percentages within 0.5 D and 1.0 D of target is summarized in Table 2. The pooled data of over 3000 eyes are also shown in the table. A previous review in 2018 reported 90.8% and 98.7% of eyes achieving SE within 0.50 D and 1.00 D, respectively, within a mean follow-up time of 12.5 months.46 Meanwhile, the current review found lower weighted averaged percentage of 84.2% and 95.4%, respectively, within a mean follow-up time of 25.2 months.
 |
Table 2 Literature Reporting on Predictability and Stability Data of Hole-ICL Implantation Between October 2018 and October 2022 |
Refractive Stability
ICL implantation has good refractive stability outcomes and is more stable than laser refractive surgery.14,16,18 The long-term stability of ICL and toric ICL has been demonstrated in several studies with data of >5 years of follow-up.41,50–52 Papa-Vettorazzi et al reported the postoperative outcomes within a mean follow-up time of 11.35 ± 1.30 years; SE at 1 month and at the final follow-up was −0.49 ± 0.75 D and −1.24 ± 1.51 D, respectively, indicating a total myopic progression of −0.75 ± 1.20 D (p = 0.01).52 There were comparable mean SE changes between patients with low myopia (≤6 D) and those with high myopia (>6 D) within a 1-year period.37,38 However, eyes with superhigh myopia (>12 D) might have poorer refractive stability after ICL implantation, with data indicating continuous myopia progression and axial elongation in these eyes.50,53 In terms of astigmatism, Bohac et al found that astigmatism changes after 4 years of toric ICL implantation were comparable to changes in untreated spectacle-wearer controls.54 The mean SE and mean change in SE in recent studies are shown in Table 2.
Safety
CDVA and safety Index
Previous studies have reported no significant difference in mean postoperative CDVA between ICL and laser refractive surgery.13,17,55 However, three studies reported a higher percentage of eyes gaining one or more lines of CDVA in the ICL group.16–18 The preservation of CDVA is measured as a safety index; importantly, it is similar to or higher after ICL implantation than that after laser refractive surgeries16–19,47,48,56 In our review of literature on the safety index of hole-ICL implantation published between October 2018 and October 2022, the weighted average safety index was 1.19 (Table 1), which was slightly higher than the safety index of 1.15 in a previous review by Packer in 2018.46
Lens Sizing and Vault
Vault (ie the distance between the posterior ICL surface and the anterior crystalline lens surface) can be measured using various methods of anterior segment imaging such as ultrasound biomicroscopy, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and Pentacam. In clinical settings, vault can be estimated by comparing it with the central corneal thickness using slit-lamp biomicroscopy.3 Unlike former ICL models without a central hole, the addition of a central port in EVO/EVO+ models does not affect the vaulting of the lens, regardless of the sizing methodology used.32,57 In general, the optimum vault is 250–750 μm or 0.5–1.5 times the corneal thickness.58–60 Vaults exceeding 750 μm have been associated with significant angle closure, pupillary block, and pigment dispersion, and these may subsequently lead to ocular hypertension and glaucoma. By contrast, vaults measuring less than 250 μm are a risk factor for anterior subcapsular cataract development due to ICL-crystalline lens contact or due to interferences with lens nutrition.59 Kato et al investigated the 1-year clinical results after hole-ICL implantation in low vault cases (<250 μm). They found no postoperative complications including cataracts, increased IOP, and decreased corneal endothelial cells.58 Likewise, another study in low vault cases (<100 µm) and a control group with more than 4 years of follow-up reported that only one eye (4.17%) in the study group developed anterior subcapsular cataract and no significant differences in lens density were observed between two groups.61 These indicated that hole-ICL yielded satisfactory results for at least the first few years postoperatively.58 Vaults tend to decrease over time, prominently within the first 6 months after ICL implantation. Further, a significant correlation was observed between a larger change in vault and a higher initial vault value.59 In a 7-year study, vaults were initially reduced and then stabilized after 5 years.41 ICL size is an important determinant of the appropriate vaulting. The most popular sizing method is the measurement of the white-to-white horizontal diameter and ACD.57 Alternative techniques include measurement of the sulcus-to-sulcus diameter, angle-to-angle diameter, or iris pigment end-to-pigment end diameter.57 Recently, a study investigating ICL vaults in different light conditions found that these values were dynamic and positively correlated with pupil diameter.62 Finally, crystalline lens rise was found to be another independent factor contributing to differences in postoperative vaulting and could possibly be used preoperatively for ICL size calculation.63 These parameters may be helpful in ICL vault prediction and improving its sizing formula.62,63
Intraocular Pressure
Possible mechanisms underlying increased IOP include retained viscoelastic or intraoperative anterior chamber overfill, steroid response, pupillary block, pre-existing juvenile open-angle glaucoma, and malignant glaucoma.64–66 Early IOP spikes following ICL implantation are most often transient and are usually managed conservatively; however, they may also lead to Urrett-Zavalia syndrome.32,64,67 In the US-FDA clinical trial of EVO/EVO+ model in 629 eyes, 19.9% of eyes experienced a transient increase in IOP due to retained ophthalmic viscosurgical device within 1–6 h post-procedure.32 These eyes were treated with ocular hypotensive medication and release of aqueous fluid from a previously constructed incision as needed. No eye with pupillary block and elevated IOP due to angle narrowing or pigment dispersion was identified. Hu et al found that early increase in IOP after V4c model implantation was associated with a narrowed anterior chamber angle and higher pupil diameter.68 They recommended the use of intracameral miotics immediately after the operation to reduce the incidence of early postoperative increase in IOP. Persistent IOP elevation after ICL implantation in hole-ICL models is rare. Regarding long-term outcomes, previous studies found no significant increase in IOP, pigmentary glaucoma, and pupillary block during 8–51 and 10-year52 follow-up. Moreover, only 2/3105 eyes developed glaucoma after ICL surgery in a 11-year retrospective study.69 In a previous review, although there were no data indicating increased IOP, the author found that pupillary block occurred in only 0.04% of the eyes.46 In a recent series of 2283 V4c-model ICL procedures, only three eyes underwent ICL exchange/explantation due to uncontrolled ocular hypertension, supporting that persistent IOP elevation after hole-ICL implantation is rare.22
Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss
The number of corneal endothelial cells decreases following ICL implantation. Preoperative endothelial cell count (ECC) is a necessary measure of decline in corneal ECD. The US-FDA approval statement for ICL indicates that the age-specific recommendations on minimum ECD should be used, although the criteria were developed using data of a non-central port ICL model.33 A study comparing conventional ICL and hole-ICL demonstrated that both models did not induce a significant change in ECD and eye morphology at the 2-year follow-up.70 In the EVO/EVO+ FDA trial, ECC loss was 2.3% at 6 months.32 Studies evaluating hole-ICL models reported ECC loss ranging 0.1–2.8% within 1 year postoperatively,32,36,38,39,71 while it ranged from 0.43% to 21.8% decline in the final visit for studies with a follow-up of at least 4 years.40,50–52,69,72,73 The number of corneal endothelial cells tended to deteriorate more rapidly during the first year after ICL implantation.74 In the US-FDA trial, ECC loss ranged from 8.4% to 9.7% in the first 3 years postoperatively and stabilized thereafter.4 Moreover, the rate of ECC loss was found to depend on the preoperative ECD and its decline over the first 2 years could be predictable on a case-by-case basis.74 However, several reports also indicated no significant change in ECC during the study period.75–79 Two mechanisms for ECC loss after phakic IOL implantation have been proposed: direct surgical trauma to peripheral ECC at the time of operation and ongoing loss due to iris vaulting with direct proximity to the peripheral corneal endothelium.80 In the EVO/EVO+ FDA trial, 0.6% of eyes had extensive ECC decline (>30%) as an adverse event at 6 months postoperatively, but no eyes had ECD of <1500 cells/mm.32
Lens Opacity
In a previous review, Packer showed that asymptomatic anterior subcapsular cataract opacities and cataract formation occurred after ICL with central hole implantation in 0.49% and 0% of 617 eyes, respectively, within a weighted average follow-up of 13 months.46 To demonstrate the long-term results of hole-ICL models, we summarized studies with more than 5 years of follow-up and that reported the incidence of cataract. The incidence rates for anterior subcapsular cataract (ASC) and nuclear cataract were 0.53% and 0.08%, respectively (Table 3). Nuclear cataracts mainly develop from age-related processes and pre-existing cataract, rather than from ICL. Meanwhile, ASCs are usually caused by ICL.52,81 However, despite the low incidence of new lens opacity formation, progression of pre-existing cataract is still observed after hole-ICL implantation. Furthermore, it is the most common cause of ICL explantation, reported in 5/770 eyes in one series.79 In that study, subsequent cataract surgery was performed at the time of ICL extraction using the same incision, and all surgeries were uneventful with visual acuity improvement. One study analyzed 1653 eyes and compared cataract-free survival between non-US-FDA cohorts and US-FDA cohorts. The results showed that age >45 years and ACD <3 mm, conditions outside the US-FDA guidelines, were associated with cataract formation.82 ICL implantation in eyes with relatively shallow anterior chamber could result in low vault and is a risk factor for the development of anterior lens opacity.57 Therefore, a minimum vault of 150 μm is recommended to protect the lens from contact with the ICL.82,83 However, it should be noted that there is still a lack of long-term studies regarding cataract incidence among young adults in the same age range, which is valuable to compare the rate of cataract formation associated with ICL implantation.
 |
Table 3 Studies on the Incidence of Cataract with More Than 5 Years of Follow-Up |
Patient Outcomes
Quality of Vision (QoV)
Myopia patients could benefit from ICL implantation with respect to better visual quality due to reduced intraocular light scattering.84,85 Studies have demonstrated that total HOAs are lower in ICL implantation than in laser refractive surgery.14,18,56 This finding might be explained by the fact that corneal refractive surgeries interfere with the central corneal shape, whereas ICL implantation procedures still maintain the prolate shape of the cornea.86 While starbursts are the main subjective visual complaints after SMILE, halos are the main complaints after ICL.48 Several studies demonstrated that the central hole has no optical effect on vision and that both ICL with and without a central hole produced similar optical quality.87,88 By contrast, some studies found a difference in visual quality among the two ICL models. The newer V4c model achieves similar visual quality and low-order aberrations for high myopia than the older V4 model, but the V4c model tends to have higher spherical aberrations and overall HOAs.89 Moreover, a visual disturbance described as “ring-shaped dysphotopsia” was reported, especially during the initial months after EVO implantation, and this is possibly related to light refraction at the central hole structure.90–92 ICL toricity is also a potential risk factor for halos, with a high number of patients, with toric ICL developing such aberration postoperatively (85.7% for ICL and 100% for toric ICL).42 However, these disturbances in visual quality stabilize as early as 3–6 months postoperatively.84,86,91
Patient-Reported Outcomes
QoV and quality of life (QoL) are mainly assessed using standardized questionnaires. In a matched comparative study, patients who had ICL implantation were less bothered by visual disturbances than patients who underwent SMILE.18 Ieong et al reported that the overall QoL, particularly with respect to sports, self-confidence, and complications related to daily sight, significantly improved after ICL procedures. In their study, driving in glare conditions was the only task to have worsened postoperatively.93 Similarly, the results of a study using the EVO+ model showed improvement in QoV and QoL despite transient difficulty to perform activities under mesopic conditions with glare during the initial weeks postoperatively.91 The common responses from patients included “being satisfied or very satisfied with the visual outcome and self-images”42,50,78 and “preference to undergo surgery in hindsight and to recommend the procedure to other patients.”42,78
Conclusion
ICL implantation is becoming increasingly popular among patients with a wide range of refractive errors owing to its proven visual and refractive outcomes. More than 2,000,000 ICLs have been dispensed worldwide over 75 countries to date, with the recent market expansion to the US after gaining FDA approval.94 It not only provides patients with visual freedom by reducing dependence on glasses or contact lenses but also assures them of better performance of daily tasks and self-confidence. In this review, we provide recent updates on ICL with a central hole and summarize the previous literature on conventional models. With the increasing rate of ICL implantation, further reviews regarding subsequent intraocular surgery in eyes with ICL implants, particularly for cataract surgery, will provide additional data that will be helpful for both surgeons and patients.
Data Sharing Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, NK, upon reasonable request.
Funding
Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
1. Lovisolo CF, Reinstein DZ. Phakic intraocular lenses. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50(6):549–587. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.08.011
2. Li K, Wang Z, Zhang D, et al. Visual outcomes and corneal biomechanics after V4c implantable collamer lens implantation in subclinical keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(10):1339–1345. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000262
3. Güell JL, Morral M, Kook D, Kohnen T. Phakic intraocular lenses part 1: historical overview, current models, selection criteria, and surgical techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(11):1976–1993. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.08.014
4. Sanders DR, Doney K, Poco M. ICL in treatment of myopia study group. united states food and drug administration clinical trial of the Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) for moderate to high myopia: three-year follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(9):1683–1692. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.03.026
5. Sanders DR, Schneider D, Martin R, et al. Toric implantable collamer lens for moderate to high myopic astigmatism. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(1):54–61. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.049
6. Rosen E, Gore C. Staar Collamer posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens to correct myopia and hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24(5):596–606. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(98)80253-8
7. Assetto V, Benedetti S, Pesando P. Collamer intraocular contact lens to correct high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996;22(5):551–556. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(96)80007-1
8. Davison JA. Positive and negative dysphotopsia in patients with acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26(9):1346–1355. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(00)00611-8
9. Pérez-Cambrodí RJ, Piñero DP, Ferrer-Blasco T, Cerviño A, Brautaset R. The posterior chamber phakic refractive lens (PRL): a review. Eye. 2013;27(1):14–21. doi:10.1038/eye.2012.235
10. Care Group. IPCL V2.0. Available from: http://caregroupiol.com/products/phakic-lenses/ipcl/.
11. Biotech. Eyecryl Phakic. Available from: https://biotechhealthcare.com/ophthalmology/refractive-product-range/eyecryl-phakic/.
12. Schallhorn S, Tanzer D, Sanders DR, Sanders ML. Randomized prospective comparison of visian toric implantable collamer lens and conventional photorefractive keratectomy for moderate to high myopic astigmatism. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ. 2007;23(9):853–867. doi:10.3928/1081-597X-20071101-01
13. Goes S, Delbeke H. Posterior chamber toric implantable collamer lenses vs LASIK for myopia and astigmatism: systematic review. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(10):1204–1210. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001007
14. Jiang Z, Wang H, Luo DQ, Chen J. Optical and visual quality comparison of implantable collamer lens and femtosecond laser assisted laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia correction. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021;14(5):737–743. doi:10.18240/ijo.2021.05.15
15. Liu HT, Zhou Z, Luo WQ, et al. Comparison of optical quality after implantable collamer lens implantation and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018;11(4):656–661. doi:10.18240/ijo.2018.04.20
16. Chen X, Guo L, Han T, Wu L, Wang X, Zhou X. Contralateral eye comparison of the long‐term visual quality and stability between implantable collamer lens and laser refractive surgery for myopia. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97(3):e471–e478. doi:10.1111/aos.13846
17. Ganesh S, Brar S, Pawar A. Matched population comparison of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between 3 modalities for the correction of low to moderate myopic astigmatism. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1253–1263. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S127101
18. Siedlecki J, Schmelter V, Mayer WJ, et al. SMILE versus implantable collamer lens implantation for high myopia: a matched comparative study. J Refract Surg. 2020;36(3):150–159. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20200210-02
19. Zhao W, Zhao J, Han T, et al. Investigation of contrast sensitivity and disk halo in high myopia treated with SMILE and EVO implantable collamer lens implantation. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2022;11(4):23. doi:10.1167/tvst.11.4.23
20. Chuck RS, Jacobs DS, Lee JK, et al. Refractive errors & refractive surgery preferred practice pattern®. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(1):P1–P104. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.10.003
21. German Society of Ophthalmology (Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft DOG), Professional Association of German Ophthalmologists (Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands e. V., BVA). Evaluation and quality assurance of refractive surgery by the German Society of Ophthalmology and the Professional Association of German Ophthalmologists-Commission for refractive surgery recommendations. Ophthalmol Z Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges. 2020;117(Suppl1):25–35. doi:10.1007/s00347-019-00986-6
22. Alhamzah A, Alharbi SS, Alfardan F, Aldebasi T, Almudhaiyan T. Indications for exchange or explantation of phakic implantable collamer lens with central port in patients with and without keratoconus. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021;14(11):1714–1720. doi:10.18240/ijo.2021.11.10
23. Sanders DR. Anterior subcapsular opacities and cataracts 5 years after surgery in the visian implantable collamer lens FDA trial. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:5.
24. Shiratani T, Shimizu K, Fujisawa K, Uga S, Nagano K, Murakami Y. Crystalline lens changes in porcine eyes with implanted phakic IOL (ICL) with a central hole. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246(5):719–728. doi:10.1007/s00417-007-0759-2
25. Kawamorita T, Uozato H, Shimizu K. Fluid dynamics simulation of aqueous humour in a posterior-chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central perforation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;250(6):935–939. doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1850-2
26. Kawamorita T, Shimizu K, Shoji N. Effect of hole size on fluid dynamics of a posterior-chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central perforation by using computational fluid dynamics. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(4):739–744. doi:10.1007/s00417-016-3304-3
27. Fujisawa K, Shimizu K, Uga S, et al. Changes in the crystalline lens resulting from insertion of a phakic IOL (ICL) into the porcine eye. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;245(1):114–122. doi:10.1007/s00417-006-0338-y
28. Pérez-Vives C, Ferrer-Blasco T, Madrid-Costa D, García-Lázaro S, Montés-Micó R. Optical quality comparison of conventional and hole-visian implantable collamer lens at different degrees of decentering. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(1):69–76.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.01.030
29. Pérez-Vives C, Ferrer-Blasco T, Madrid-Costa D, García-Lázaro S, Montés-Micó R. Visual quality comparison of conventional and Hole-Visian implantable collamer lens at different degrees of decentering. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(1):59–64. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303787
30. Shimizu K, Kamiya K, Igarashi A, Shiratani T. Intraindividual comparison of visual performance after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with and without a central hole implantation for moderate to high myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(3):486–494.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2012.04.001
31. Shimizu K, Kamiya K, Igarashi A, Kobashi H. Long-term comparison of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with and without a central hole (Hole ICL and Conventional ICL) implantation for moderate to high myopia and myopic astigmatism: consort-compliant article. Medicine. 2016;95(14):e3270. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000003270
32. Packer M. Evaluation of the EVO/EVO+ sphere and toric visian ICL: six month results from the United States food and drug administration clinical trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:1541–1553. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S369467
33. EVO/EVO+ VISIAN implantable collamer lens – P030016/S035. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/evoevo-visian-implantable-collamer-lens-p030016s035.
34. STAAR Surgical Company. Approved expanded uses for EVO visian ICLTM and changes to DFU; 2018. Available from: https://www.facoelche.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ICL-Age-Range-and-ACD-Expansion-Announcement-2018_Final-II.pdf.
35. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, et al. Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation in eyes with an anterior chamber depth of less than 3 mm: a multicenter study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):13322. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-31782-y
36. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, et al. A nationwide multicenter study on 1-year outcomes of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation for low myopia. Front Med. 2022;9:762153. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.762153
37. Pinto C, Monteiro T, Franqueira N, Faria-Correia F, Mendes J, Vaz F. Posterior chamber collamer phakic intraocular lens implantation: comparison of efficacy and safety for low and moderate-to-high myopia. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;32(2):894–901. doi:10.1177/11206721211012861
38. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, et al. Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation: comparative, multicentre study in 351 eyes with low-to-moderate or high myopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102(2):177–181. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310164
39. Shimizu K, Kamiya K, Igarashi A, Shiratani T. Early clinical outcomes of implantation of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central hole (Hole ICL) for moderate to high myopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(3):409–412. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300148
40. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega-Cueto L, Alfonso-Bartolozzi B, Montés-Micó R, Fernández-Vega L. Five-year follow-up of correction of myopia: posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central port design. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(3):169–176. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20190118-01
41. Fernández-Vega-Cueto L, Alfonso-Bartolozzi B, Lisa C, Madrid-Costa D, Alfonso JF. Seven-year follow-up of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with central port design. Eye Vis. 2021;8(1):23. doi:10.1186/s40662-021-00247-1
42. Wei R, Li M, Niu L, et al. Comparison of visual outcomes after non‐toric and toric implantable collamer lens V4c for myopia and astigmatism. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021;99(5):511–518. doi:10.1111/aos.14652
43. Moshirfar M, Bundogji N, Tukan AN, et al. Toric implantable collamer lens for the treatment of myopic astigmatism. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:2893–2906. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S321095
44. Cano-Ortiz A, Sánchez-Ventosa Á, Membrillo A, et al. Astigmatism correction with toric implantable collamer lens in low and high astigmatism groups. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;32(1):183–192. doi:10.1177/1120672121999991
45. Zhao J, Zhao J, Yang W, et al. Influence of ocular residual astigmatism and target-induced astigmatism on the efficacy of the implantation of a toric implantable collamer lens with central hole for myopic astigmatism correction. Front Med. 2022;8:737358. doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.737358
46. Packer M. The Implantable Collamer Lens with a central port: review of the literature. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2427–2438. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S188785
47. Niu L, Miao H, Tian M, Fu D, Wang X, Zhou X. One‐year visual outcomes and optical quality of femtosecond laser small incision lenticule extraction and Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL V4c) implantation for high myopia. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98:6. doi:10.1111/aos.14344
48. Aruma A, Li M, Choi J, et al. Visual outcomes after small incision lenticule extraction and implantable collamer lens V4c for moderate myopia: 1-year results. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259(8):2431–2440. doi:10.1007/s00417-020-04982-4
49. Alonso-Juárez E, Velázquez-Villoria D. Low diopter phakic implantable collamer lens: refractive and visual outcomes in low myopia and myopic astigmatism. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:2969–2977. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S373378
50. Chen X, Wang X, Xu Y, et al. Five-year outcomes of EVO implantable collamer lens implantation for the correction of high myopia and super high myopia. Eye Vis. 2021;8(1):40. doi:10.1186/s40662-021-00264-0
51. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Takahashi M, Ando W, Hayakawa H, Shoji N. Eight-year outcomes of implantation of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central port for moderate to high ametropia. Front Med. 2021;8:799078. doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.799078
52. Papa-Vettorazzi MR, Güell JL, Cruz-Rodriguez JB, Moura-Coelho N, Elies D. Long-term efficacy and safety profiles after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation in eyes with more than 10 years of follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(7):813–818. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000848
53. Chen X, Chen Z, Miao H, Wang X, Wang X, Zhou X. One-year analysis of the refractive stability, axial elongation and related factors in a high myopia population after Implantable Collamer Lens implantation. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42(11):3295–3302. doi:10.1007/s10792-022-02328-z
54. Bohac M, Biscevic A, Gabric I, Gabric K, Shijakova V, Patel S. A critical evaluation of longitudinal changes of astigmatism following implantation of toric implantable collamer lens (TICL): a comparison between treated and untreated cases over 4 years. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(4):1377–1386. doi:10.1007/s00417-021-05449-w
55. Chen K, Hu Z, Zhou J, et al. Vector Analysis of the Effects of FS-LASIK and Toric ICL for Moderate to High Astigmatism Correction. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:1–6. doi:10.1155/2018/6952710
56. Wei R, Li M, Zhang H, et al. Comparison of objective and subjective visual quality early after implantable collamer lens V4c (ICL V4c) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for high myopia correction. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98(8). doi:10.1111/aos.14459
57. Packer M. Meta-analysis and review: effectiveness, safety, and central port design of the intraocular collamer lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;1059. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S111620
58. Kato S, Shimizu K, Igarashi A. Assessment of low-vault cases with an implantable collamer lens. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0241814. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241814
59. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Lisa C, Fernandes P, González-Meijome J, Montés-Micó R. Long-term evaluation of the central vault after phakic Collamer® lens (ICL) implantation using OCT. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;250(12):1807–1812. doi:10.1007/s00417-012-1957-0
60. Choi KH, Chung SE, Chung TY, Chung ES. Ultrasound biomicroscopy for determining visian implantable contact lens length in phakic IOL implantation. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ. 2007;23(4):362–367. doi:10.3928/1081-597X-20070401-08
61. Gonzalez-Lopez F, Bouza-Miguens C, Tejerina V, Mompean B, Ortega-Usobiaga J, Bilbao-Calabuig R. Long-term assessment of crystalline lens transparency in eyes implanted with a central-hole phakic collamer lens developing low postoperative vault. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(2):204–210. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000425
62. Gonzalez-Lopez F, Bouza-Miguens C, Tejerina V, et al. Dynamic assessment of variations in pupil diameter using swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography after phakic collamer lens implantation. Eye Vis. 2021;8(1):39. doi:10.1186/s40662-021-00262-2
63. Gonzalez-Lopez F, Bilbao-Calabuig R, Mompean B, Luezas J, Ortega-Usobiaga J, Druchkiv V. Determining the potential role of crystalline lens rise in vaulting in posterior chamber phakic collamer lens surgery for correction of myopia. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(3):177–183. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20190204-01
64. Senthil S, Choudhari NS, Vaddavalli PK, Murthy S, Reddy J, Garudadri CS. Etiology and management of raised intraocular pressure following posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation in myopic eyes. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0165469. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165469
65. Chanbour W, Cherfan C, Jarade E, Khoury J. Unilateral malignant glaucoma postbilateral implantable collamer lens: effect of miotics. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2019;26(3):181. doi:10.4103/meajo.MEAJO_197_18
66. Grover IG, Senthil S, Murthy S, Reddy JC. A rare case of pupillary block glaucoma following centraflow implantable collamer lens surgery. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(8):694–696. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000705
67. Niruthisard D, Kasetsuwan N. UnilateralUrrets-Zavalia syndrome after implantable collamer lens implantation: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Reports. 2021;15(1):467. doi:10.1186/s13256-021-03063-2
68. Hu Z, Chen C, Sun M, Yuan R, Ye J. The relationship between anterior chamber angle and intraocular pressure early after V4c implantable collamer lens implantation. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:1–6. doi:10.1155/2020/4014512
69. Packer KT, Vlasov A, Greenburg DL, et al. U.S. military implantable collamer lens surgical outcomes: 11-year retrospective review. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(6):649–656. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000818
70. Goukon H, Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A. Comparison of corneal endothelial cell density and morphology after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation with and without a central hole. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(11):1461–1465. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309363
71. Lisa C, Naveiras M, Alfonso-Bartolozzi B, Belda-Salmerón L, Montés-Micó R, Alfonso JF. Posterior chamber collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lens with a central hole to correct myopia: one-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(6):1153–1159. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.10.030
72. Chen X, Wang X, Xu Y, et al. Long-term comparison of vault and complications of implantable collamer lens with and without a central hole for high myopia correction: 5 years. Curr Eye Res. 2022;47(4):540–546. doi:10.1080/02713683.2021.2012202
73. Yang W, Zhao J, Sun L, et al. Four-year observation of the changes in corneal endothelium cell density and correlated factors after Implantable Collamer Lens V4c implantation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(5):625–630. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316144
74. Bohac M, Jagic M, Biscevic A, Shijakova V, Gabric N, Patel S. Changes in endothelial cell count up to three years after implantation of toric implantable collamer lenses. Cornea. 2019;38(7):873–879. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001914
75. Chen X, Shen Y, Xu H, Wang X, Zhou X. One-year natural course of corneal densitometry in high myopic patients after implantation of an implantable collamer lens (model V4c). BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20(1):50. doi:10.1186/s12886-020-1320-x
76. Zhao J, Luo D, Sun Y, et al. Implanting a posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens in highly myopic eyes with peripheral primary iris and ciliary body cysts. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29(2):171–177. doi:10.1177/1120672118766445
77. Fernández-Vega-Cueto L, Lisa C, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Montés-Micó R, Alfonso J. Implantable collamer lens with central hole: 3-year follow-up. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2015–2029. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S171576
78. Yan Z, Miao H, Zhao F, et al. Two-year outcomes of visian implantable collamer lens with a central hole for correcting high myopia. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:1–9. doi:10.1155/2018/8678352
79. Hayakawa H, Kamiya K, Ando W, Takahashi M, Shoji N. Etiology and outcomes of current posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens extraction. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):21686. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78661-z
80. Moya T, Javaloy J, Montés-Micó R, Beltrán J, Muñoz G, Montalbán R. Implantable collamer lens for myopia: assessment 12 years after implantation. J Refract Surg. 2015;31(8):548–556. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20150727-05
81. Igarashi A, Kamiya K, Ichikawa K, et al. Multicenter clinical outcomes of hole implantable collamer lens implantation in middle-aged patients. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4236. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08298-7
82. Gimbel HV, LeClair BM, Jabo B, Marzouk H. Incidence of implantable Collamer lens–induced cataract. Can J Ophthalmol. 2018;53(5):518–522. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.11.018
83. Gonvers M, Bornet C, Othenin-Girard P. Implantable contact lens for moderate to high myopia: relationship of vaulting to cataract formation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29(5):918–924. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(03)00065-8
84. Yu Z, Li J, Song H. Short-time evaluation on intraocular scattering after implantable collamer lens implantation for correcting high myopia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20(1):235. doi:10.1186/s12886-020-01482-1
85. He T, Zhu Y, Zhou J. Optical quality after posterior chamber Phakic implantation of an intraocular Lens with a central hole (V4c implantable Collamer Lens) under different lighting conditions. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20(1):82. doi:10.1186/s12886-020-01340-0
86. Miao H, Chen X, Tian M, Chen Y, Wang X, Zhou X. Refractive outcomes and optical quality after implantation of posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lens with a central hole (ICL V4c). BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18(4):141. doi:10.1186/s12886-018-0805-3
87. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Saito A, Igarashi A, Kobashi H. Comparison of optical quality and intraocular scattering after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with and without a central hole (hole ICL and Conventional ICL) implantation using the double-pass instrument. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66846. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066846
88. Iijima A, Shimizu K, Yamagishi M, Kobashi H, Igarashi A, Kamiya K. Assessment of subjective intraocular forward scattering and quality of vision after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central hole (Hole ICL) implantation. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(8):e716–e720. doi:10.1111/aos.13092
89. Tian Y, Jiang HB, Jiang J, Wen D, Xia XB, Song WT. Comparison of Implantable Collamer Lens Visian ICL V4 and ICL V4c for high myopia: a cohort study. Medicine. 2017;96(25):e7294. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000007294
90. Eom Y, Kim DW, Ryu D, et al. Ring-shaped dysphotopsia associated with posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lenses with a central hole. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(3):e170–e178. doi:10.1111/aos.13248
91. Martínez-Plaza E, López-Miguel A, López-de la Rosa A, et al. Effect of the EVO+ visian phakic implantable collamer lens on visual performance and quality of vision and life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;226:117–125. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2021.02.005
92. Martínez-Plaza E, López-Miguel A, la Rosa AL, McAlinden C, Fernández I, Maldonado MJ. EVO+ implantable collamer lens KS-aquaPORT location, stability, and impact on quality of vision and life. J Refract Surg. 2022;38(3):177–183. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20220106-01
93. Ieong A, Hau SCH, Rubin GS, Allan BDS. Quality of life in high myopia before and after implantable collamer lens implantation. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(12):2295–2300. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.03.055
94. STAAR Surgical. STAAR Surgical Investor Presentation; 2022. Available from: https://investors.staar.com/home/default.aspx.
95. Ye Y, Zhao J, Niu L, Shi W, Wang X, Zhou X. Long-term evaluation of anterior lens density after implantable collamer lens V4c implantation in patients with myopia over 40 years old. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;bjophthalmol-2021–319205. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-319205
96. Yang W, Zhao J, Zhao J, et al. Changes in anterior lens density after Implantable Collamer Lens V4c implantation: a 4‐year prospective observational study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021;99(3):326–333. doi:10.1111/aos.14584
97. Zhao J, Yang W, Zhao J, et al. A four-year observation of corneal densitometry after implantable collamer lens V4c implantation. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(7):536. doi:10.21037/atm-20-6628
98. Wan T, Yin H, Wu Z, Yang Y. Comparative study of implantable collamer lens implantation in treating four degrees of myopia: six-month observation of visual results, higher-order aberrations, and amplitude of accommodation. Curr Eye Res. 2020;45(7):839–846. doi:10.1080/02713683.2019.1701690
99. Tañá-Rivero P, Pastor-Pascual F, Crespo M, Rodríguez-Prats JL, Muñoz-Tomás JJ, Montés-Micó R. Posterior-chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation in patients over 40 years of age. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:1–8. doi:10.1155/2020/7457902
100. Chaitanya S, Anitha V, Ravindran M, Ghorpade A, Rengappa R, Uduman M. Safety and efficacy of toric implantable collamer lens V4c model – a retrospective South Indian study. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(12):3006. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1492_20
101. Reinstein D, Vida R, Archer T. Visual outcomes, footplate position and vault achieved with the visian implantable collamer lens for myopic astigmatism. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:4485–4497. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S330879
102. Sachdev G, Singh S, Ramamurthy S, Rajpal N, Dandapani R. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between two types of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;67(7):1061. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1501_18
© 2023 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.
By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.