MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Randomized Prospective Comparison of Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy for Moderate to High Myopic Astigmatism
Randomized Prospective Comparison of Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy for Moderate to High Myopic Astigmatism
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Randomized Prospective Comparison of Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy for Moderate to High Myopic Astigmatism
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Randomized Prospective Comparison of Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy for Moderate to High Myopic Astigmatism
Randomized Prospective Comparison of Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy for Moderate to High Myopic Astigmatism

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Randomized Prospective Comparison of Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy for Moderate to High Myopic Astigmatism
Randomized Prospective Comparison of Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy for Moderate to High Myopic Astigmatism
Journal Article

Randomized Prospective Comparison of Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Conventional Photorefractive Keratectomy for Moderate to High Myopic Astigmatism

2007
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Purpose: To compare the Visian Toric Implantable Collamer Lens (TICL), a toric phakic intraocular lens (IOL), and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in the correction of moderate to high myopic astigmatism. Methods: This prospective, randomized study consisted of 43 eyes implanted with the TICL (20 bilateral cases) and 45 eyes receiving PRK with mitomycin C (22 bilateral cases) with moderate to high myopia (−6.00 to −20.00 diopters [D] sphere) measured at the spectacle plane and 1.00 to 4.00 D of astigmatism. All patient treatment and follow-up occurred at the Naval Medical Center San Diego. Study follow-up was 1 day, 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative. Results: Mean best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), change in BSCVA, proportion of cases with improvement of 1 or more lines of BSCVA, proportion of cases with BSCVA and uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) 20/12.5 or better, proportion of cases with BSCVA and UCVA 20/16 or better (6 months, 88% vs 54%, P=.002), and predictability ±1.00 D (6 months, 100% vs 67%, P<.001) were all significantly better in the TICL group than the PRK group at all time periods studied postoperatively. Similarly, contrast sensitivity, tested at both the 5% photopic level and the 25% mesopic level, was significantly better at all postoperative time points in the TICL group. Mean spherical equivalent refraction was closer to emmetropia (0.28±0.41 vs 0.76±0.86, P=.005), and predictability ±0.50 D and stability of manifest refraction (±0.50 D and ±1.00 D) were significantly better in the TICL group at all postoperative visits through 6 months. Mean astigmatism correction at 6 months was not significantly different between the two groups (0.52±0.33 vs 0.46±0.35, P=.450). Conclusions: The TICL performed better than PRK in all measures of safety (BSCVA), efficacy (UCVA), predictability, and stability in this comparison, supporting the TICL as a viable alternative to existing refractive surgical treatments. [J Refract Surg. 2007;23:853–867.]