Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between two types of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism
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.
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?
Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between two types of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between two types of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses for correction of myopia and 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
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.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between two types of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism
2019
Overview
Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes following implantation of two types of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses: Visian™ Implantable Collamer Lens with Centraflow (ICL, V4C Staar Surgical, Nidau, Switzerland) and Implantable Phakic Contact Lens (IPCL, V1, Caregroup Sight Solution, India) for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Methods: This retrospective case series included eyes which underwent phakic intraocular lens implantation with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. Visual outcomes including safety, efficacy, refractive predictability, and stability were compared at 1 week and at 1, 6, and 12 months' postoperative visit. Complications and adverse events were analyzed. Results: The study included 119 and 203 eyes in the IPCL and ICL groups, respectively. At 1-year postoperative visit, median corrected distance visual acuity was 0.10 (interquartile range [IQR] 0,0.10) and 0 (IQR 0,0) in the IPCL and ICL cohorts, respectively (P = 0.066). An uncorrected visual acuity of 20/32 or better was achieved in 86.5% and 88.67% of the eyes, respectively (P = 0.574). Ninety and 94% of the eyes achieved a postoperative manifest spherical equivalent within ± 0.5D (P = 0.169, χ2 test). Three eyes (2.52%) in the IPCL group versus one eye (0.49%) in the ICL group developed visually significant cataract requiring surgical intervention (P = 0.113). No vision-threatening complications were noted in either cohort. The mean follow-up period was 94.69 ± 32.45 and 102.67 ± 61.82 weeks, respectively. Conclusion: Both groups demonstrated similar efficacy and safety profile. The IPCL is an effective and economically viable option for the correction of myopia.
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd,Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd,Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd,Wolters Kluwer - Medknow,Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
Subject
