Combined posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens and laser in situ keratomileusis: bioptics for extreme myopia.

PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy, predictability, stability, and safety of combined posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in eyes with extreme myopia. METHODS: We analyzed the results of 67 eyes that received a posterior chamber hydrogel-collagen plate phakic IOL (STAAR Collamer Implantable Contact Lens) and also underwent secondary LASIK for the correction of extreme myopia. Mean follow-up was 3 months after the LASIK portion of the procedure (range, 1 day to 6 mo after LASIK). RESULTS: Mean preoperative spherical equivalent refraction was -23.00 +/- 3.60 D (range, -18.75 to -35.00 D), and mean refractive cylinder was 1.50 +/- 1.20 D (range, 0 to 5.00 D). Mean spherical equivalent refraction after IOL implantation and before LASIK was -6.00 +/- 2.80 D (range, -2.00 to -14.38 D) and mean refractive cylinder 1.50 +/- 1.10 D (range, 0 to 5.00 D). Mean postoperative spherical equivalent refraction at last examination after the LASIK portion of the two-part phakic IOL-LASIK procedure was -0.20 +/- 0.90 D (range, +1.75 to -5.13 D), and mean refractive cylinder was 0.50 +/- 0.50 (range, 0 to 2.25 D). Eighty-five percent (57 eyes) were within +/- 1.00 D and 67% (45 eyes) were within +/- 0.50 D of emmetropia at last examination. The refractions remained stable with a statistically insignificant change (P > .05 at each interval) during follow-up. Postoperative uncorrected visual acuity at last examination was 20/20 or better in 3% (2 eyes) and 20/40 or better in 69% (46 eyes). A gain of 2 or more lines of spectacle-corrected visual acuity was seen in 51 eyes (76%) and no eyes lost 2 or more lines of spectacle-corrected visual acuity at last examination. CONCLUSION: Combined posterior chamber phakic IOL implantation with the STAAR Collamer plate lens and LASIK (bioptics) is an effective and reasonably predictable method for correcting myopia from -18 to -35 D. Gains in spectacle-corrected visual acuity were common, and results demonstrated good short-term safety and refractive stability.     

Photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis for residual refractive error after phakic intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of combining phakic posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and excimer corneal surgery to treat high myopia or myopia with astigmatism. SETTING: Service d'Ophtalmologie, H?pital Purpan, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France. METHODS: Thirty-two eyes of 28 patients with extreme myopia or myopia combined with astigmatism were treated by implantation of a phakic posterior chamber IOL. Residual refractive errors were treated no earlier than 6 weeks after IOL implantation by photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in eyes with low refractive errors or by laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in eyes with higher residual refractive errors. RESULTS: The mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refraction was -18.7 diopters (D). The refractive astigmatism ranged from 0 to 3.5 D. After excimer laser treatment, the SE refraction ranged from -0.5 to -2.5 D and the refractive astigmatism, from 0 to 1.5 D in the PRK group. In the LASIK group, spherical ametropia ranged from -1.5 to +1.5 D and astigmatism, from 0 to 1.0 D. After excimer laser treatment, the uncorrected visual acuity improved in all eyes but a loss of 1 line of the corrected vision after IOL implantation occurred in 22.2% of PRK-treated eyes and in 13.6% of LASIK-treated eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Bioptic treatment of extreme myopia and myopia associated with astigmatism appears to be safer and more predictable than other methods of treatment.     

Clear lens extraction with intraocular lens followed by photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis

OBJECTIVE: To study photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) after clear lens extraction (CLE) with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation for hyperopia or astigmatism. DESIGN: Retrospective, noncomparative interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five eyes (55 subjects) had CLE with posterior chamber IOL implants for hyperopia up to 12.25 diopters (D); 31 eyes were retreated with PRK, and 34 eyes were retreated with LASIK for residual ametropias. INTERVENTION: For PRK and LASIK, the refractive surgery was performed with the slit-scanning excimer laser Nidek EC-5000, Nidek Co., Tokyo, Japan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Manifest refraction, best-spectacle and uncorrected Snellen visual acuity, haze, and halos were evaluated before surgery and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative. RESULTS: Forty-seven eyes were evaluated at the 12-month postoperative examination: 96% of these eyes had spherical equivalents (SE) within +/-2 D of emmetropia, 79% of eyes had SE within +/-1 D of emmetropia and 51% of eyes had SE within +/-0.50 D of emmetropia. Eighty-five percent of the eyes at 12 months postoperative had uncorrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better, and 46% of eyes had uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better. Eighty-seven percent of the eyes at 12 months postoperative had uncorrected visual acuity within 1 Snellen line of their initial best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) before all treatment. No eye lost 2 Snellen lines of BSCVA at 3, 6, or 12 months after PRK or after LASIK. CONCLUSIONS: IOL implantation for CLE, although an invasive technique, resulted in better refractive outcomes without laser-related clinical complications after PRK or LASIK adjustment.     

Laser in situ keratomileusis for correction of induced astigmatism from cataract surgery

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, predictability, stability, and safety of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) to correct residual astigmatism after cataract surgery. METHODS: LASIK was performed on 20 eyes of 20 patients with refractive myopic or mixed astigmatism (3.00 to 6.00 D) at least 1 year after extracapsular cataract extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation without complication. Each eye received bitoric LASIK with the Nidek EC-5000 excimer laser and the Automated Corneal Shaper microkeratome. RESULTS: At 6 months after LASIK, mean refractive cylinder decreased from 4.64+/-0.63 D to 0.44+/-0.24 D (P<.001). Mean percent reduction of astigmatism was 90.4+/-5.0% (range 80% to 100%). Mean spherical equivalent refraction decreased from -2.19+/-0.88 D (range -1.00 to -3.88 D) to -0.32+/-0.34 D (range -1.25 to +0.38 D) (P<.001). Vector analysis showed that the mean amount of axis deviation was 0.7+/-1.2 degrees (range 0 degrees to 4.3 degrees) and the mean percent correction of preoperative astigmatism was 92.1+/-5.9% (range 85.6% to 108%). Eighty-five percent of all eyes had a mean spherical equivalent refraction and mean cylinder within +/-0.50 D of emmetropia. Change in spherical equivalent refraction and cylinder from 2 weeks to 6 months was < or = 0.50 D in 90% (18 eyes) and 95% (19 eyes), respectively. Spectacle-corrected visual acuity was not reduced in any eye. Diffuse lamellar keratitis occurred in three eyes (15%) after LASIK, and were treated successfully with eyedrops. CONCLUSION: LASIK was an effective, predictable, stable, and safe procedure for correction of residual myopic or mixed astigmatism ranging from 3.00 to 6.00 D with a low spherical component after cataract surgery.     

Comparison of photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia of -6 D or less using the Nidek EC-5000 laser

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy, predictability, and safety of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for the surgical correction of low and moderate myopia. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed to evaluate uncorrected and spectacle-corrected visual acuity, and manifest refraction 1 year after PRK or LASIK. All procedures were done using an automatic microkeratome (Chiron Ophthalmic) and the Nidek EC-5000 excimer laser. RESULTS: PRK was performed in 75 eyes of 45 patients and LASIK in 133 eyes of 77 patients. Mean age for PRK patients was 32.8 years (range, 18 to 52 yr) and LASIK patients was 29.6 years (range, 18 to 49 yr). Mean preoperative spherical equivalent refraction for PRK patients was -3.28 D (range, -1.00 to -6.00 D) and LASIK, -3.86 D (range, -1.00 to -6.00 D). One year after surgery, mean spherical equivalent refraction for Group 1 (baseline, -1.00 to -3.00 D) PRK eyes was -0.18 +/- 0.61 D (range, -1.50 to +0.75 D) and for LASIK eyes, -0.08 +/- 0.61 D (range, -1.50 to +1.62 D), with no statistically significant difference. For Group 2 eyes (baseline, -3.25 to -6.00 D), mean spherical equivalent refraction for PRK eyes was -0.44 +/- 0.87 D (range, -2.00 to +2.12 D) and for LASIK eyes, -0.09 +/- 0.83 D (range, -1.50 to +1.75 D), with no statistically significant difference. The antilogarithm of the mean UCVA (antilogUCVA) in Group 1 for PRK was 0.79 +/- 0.21 (20/25) and for LASIK was 0.87 +/- 0.19 (20/23), with no statistically significant difference. The antilogUCVA in Group 2 for PRK eyes was 0.70 +/- 0.24 (20/28) and for LASIK eyes was 0.83 +/- 0.18 (20/24), with a statistically significant difference (0.7 vs. 0.83, P < .005). The percentage of eyes with a postoperative UCVA >20/40 in Group 1 for PRK was 91.5% (38 eyes) and for LASIK was 95% (50 eyes) (no statistically significant difference), and in Group 2 for PRK eyes, it was 82% (27 eyes) and 97.5% (78 eyes) for LASIK (statistically significant difference, P < .05). CONCLUSION: PRK and LASIK with the Nidek EC-5000 excimer laser are effective and safe for correcting low to moderate myopia, but LASIK eyes showed better results for moderate myopia in terms of uncorrected visual acuity.     

Combined surgery to correct high myopia: iris claw phakic intraocular lens and laser in situ keratomileusis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of combined surgery, implantation of an Artisan phakic iris claw intraocular lens (IOL) followed by laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) to correct high myopia. METHODS: A prospective study of 6 patients (8 eyes) with high myopia who had Artisan phakic IOL implantation followed by LASIK was undertaken. The IOL was a standard -15.00-D, 6-mm diameter optical zone. Residual refractive error was corrected by LASIK. Mean follow-up was 16 +/- 4 months (range, 12 to 20 mo). RESULTS: After the second procedure (LASIK), uncorrected visual acuity ranged from 0.4 to 0.63 (mean, 0.5 +/- 0.07) at 1 month and from 0.6 to 0.7 (mean, 0.62 +/- 0.04) at 12 months. Spectacle-corrected visual acuity improved 2 or more lines in 62.5% (5 eyes) from preoperative values. Mean postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was -0.68 +/- 0.23 at 1 month and -0.35 +/- 0.22 at 12 months after LASIK. All eyes were within +/-1.00 D of emmetropia following the LASIK portion of the two-stage procedure and 5 eyes were within +/-0.50 D. We had no major complications. No significant endothelial damage occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The accurate refractive outcome, absence of major complications, stability of results, and most important, improvement in quality of vision (defined as no change in vision when illumination conditions varied, eg, at night) experienced by these highly myopic patients are reasons to continue using and improving this combined technique.     

Refractive lens exchange with an array multifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate safety, efficacy, predictability, stability, complications, and patient satisfaction after refractive lens exchange (clear lens extraction) followed by posterior chamber implantation of a multifocal intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: Fifty eyes of 25 patients (mean age 51 years, range 44 to 62 years) with preoperative spherical equivalent refraction between -15.50 and +5.75 D and cylinder between 0 and 1.50 D underwent bilateral implantation of a zonal progressive multifocal IOL (Array, AMO). RESULTS: Eyes were divided into group A (n=24; myopia, average preoperative spherical equivalent refraction -7.11 +/- 3.25 D (-1.75 to -15.50 D), and group B (n=26; hyperopia, average preoperative spherical equivalent refraction +3.04 +/- 1.04 D). Follow-up was 6 months in all eyes. Postoperatively, all eyes of both groups were within +/-1.00 D of target refraction. No eye in group A and three eyes in group B sustained a loss of one line of BSCVA. Forty-seven eyes (94%) remained unchanged or gained one or more lines of their preoperative BSCVA. In all eyes, postoperative UCVA was 20/40 or better. When compared to preoperative, uncorrected near visual acuity improved (statistically significant). All patients achieved uncorrected binocular visual acuity of 20/30 and J4 or better. Patient satisfaction was extremely high; no intra- or postoperative complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Six-month results of implantation of the AMO Array multifocal IOL for refractive lens exchange demonstrated safety, efficacy, and predictability in correcting high ametropia and significant improvement of uncorrected near and distance visual acuity.     

Laser in situ keratomileusis for residual myopia after photorefractive keratectomy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopic regression and undercorrection after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). SETTING: The Eye Institute, Sydney, Australia. METHODS: Fifty eyes of 32 patients were treated by LASIK for residual myopia following primary PRK. The mean spherical equivalent refraction (SEQ) was -2.92 diopters (D) +/- 1.57 (SD) (range -0.75 to -7.88 D). The mean refractive cylinder was 0.96 +/- 0.74 D (range 0 to 3.50 D). For analysis, the eyes were divided into 2 groups: those with 0 or low corneal haze (Group 1) and those with severe corneal haze (Group 2). In Group 1, the SEQ was -1.99 +/- 0.79 D (range -0.75 to -3.75 D) and in Group 2, -3.77 +/- 1.62 D (range -0.75 to -7.90 D). The procedure was performed using the Chiron Automated Corneal Shaper and the Summit Apex Plus laser. The mean interval between PRK and LASIK was 25 months (range 9 to 59 months). The following parameters were studied before and after LASIK retreatment: SEQ, mean refractive cylinder, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Complications after LASIK retreatment were evaluated. RESULTS: Six months after LASIK, the mean SEQ in all eyes was -0.65 +/- 0.86 D (range +1.50 to -3.35 D); 70.0% of eyes were within +/-1.00 D of emmetropia and the UCVA was 6/12 or better in 72.5%. The mean SEQ in Group 1 was -0.22 +/- 0.55 D (range -0.88 to -1.50 D) and in Group 2, -0.97+/- 0.92 D (range 0.12 to -3.25 D); the UCVA was 6/12 or better in 94.0% of eyes in Group 1 and in 56.0% in Group 2. No statistically significant between-group difference was found in lines of Snellen acuity lost or gained at 6 months. No eye lost more than 1 line of BCVA. CONCLUSIONS: Laser in situ keratomileusis appears to be a safe, effective, and predictable procedure for treating eyes with 0 or low haze with residual myopia after PRK. It is less predictable in eyes with severe haze.     

Comparison of two procedures: photorefractive keratectomy versus laser in situ keratomileusis for low to moderate myopia

PURPOSE: A prospective study was conducted to compare the effectiveness, safety, and stability of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for correction of low to moderate myopia. METHODS: Forty-five patients with a manifest refraction (PRK, -4.54 +/- 0.80; LASIK, -4.82 +/- 1.10) from -1.50 to -6.00 diopters (D) were treated and followed-up for 6 months. In each case, 1 eye received PRK and the other LASIK. The first eye treated, and the surgical method used in the first eye, were randomized. Uncorrected and corrected visual acuity, manifest refraction, corneal haze, and topographic analysis of ablation decentration were examined. RESULTS: The uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 35 PRK eyes (77.8%) and 28 LASIK eyes (62.2%) at 6 months (P =.107). At 6 months, 28 eyes (62.2%) that received PRK showed a spherical equivalent of within +/-0.5 D as compared with 24 eyes (53.4%) that received LASIK (P =.393). The amount of ablation decentration was 0.37 +/- 0.25 mm in PRK eyes and 0.49 +/- 0.38 mm in LASIK eyes at 3 months (P =.36). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, PRK and LASIK were found to be similarly effective and predictive of correction in low to moderate myopia. PRK has the advantage of less ablation decentration and is safer than LASIK, so we recommend PRK for eyes with low to moderate myopia.     

Laser in situ keratomileusis retreatment for residual myopia and astigmatism

PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual and refractive results of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) retreatment on eyes with residual myopia with or without astigmatism. METHODS: LASIK retreatment was performed on 35 eyes of 23 patients for correction of residual myopia, with or without astigmatism, with a mean manifest spherical equivalent refraction of -2.17+/-0.82 D (range, -1.00 to -3.87 D) and mean refractive astigmatism of -0.55+/-0.61 D (range, 0 to -1.75 D). Retreatment was performed 3 to 18 months after primary LASIK (mean, 5.1+/-2.6 mo). The corneal flap of the previous LASIK was lifted and laser ablation was performed using the Chiron-Technolas Keracor 116 excimer laser. Follow-up was 12 months for all eyes. RESULTS: At 1 year after retreatment, manifest spherical equivalent refraction was reduced to a mean -0.23+/-0.28 D (range, 0 to -0.87 D), and refractive astigmatism was reduced to a mean -0.16+/-0.25 D (range, 0 to -0.75 D). Thirty-two eyes (91.5%) had a manifest spherical equivalent refraction within +/-0.50 D of emmetropia, and 33 eyes (94.3%) had 0 to 0.50 D of refractive astigmatism. Uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 11 eyes (31.4%). Spectacle-corrected visual acuity was not reduced in any eye after retreatment. There were no significant complications. CONCLUSION: LASIK retreatment was effective for correction of residual myopia or astigmatism after primary LASIK. Refractive results were predictable with good stability after 3 months. Lifting the flap during LASIK retreatment was relatively easy to perform and did not result in visual morbidity in eyes treated from 3 up to 18 months after primary LASIK.     

Intraoperative autorefraction for combined phakic intraocular lens explantation and cataract surgery

PURPOSE: To evaluate intraoperative autorefraction during combined phakic intraocular lens (PIOL) explantation and cataract surgery. METHODS: Phakic intraocular lens explantation was followed by crystalline lens emulsification and reformation of the anterior chamber with balanced salt solution. Autorefraction was performed intraoperatively with the Nikon Retinomax 2, and the IOL power was calculated using a formula for myopic eyes: IOL for emmetropia = 1.3 x aphakic spherical equivalent refraction + 1.45. RESULTS: Nineteen myopic eyes of 15 patients with anterior or posterior chamber PIOL (including 6 eyes that had undergone photorefractive keratectomy) were treated. Two months postoperatively, mean spherical equivalent refraction was -0.56+/-0.40 diopters (D) (range: 0 to -1.50 D). CONCLUSIONS: In myopic eyes, intraoperative auto-refraction provided a simple and reliable method to calculate IOL power in combined PIOL explantation and cataract surgery.     

A randomized paired eye comparison of two techniques for treating moderately high myopia: LASIK and artisan phakic lens

OBJECTIVE: To compare refractive performance and safety of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and Artisan phakic intraocular lens (PIOL) for moderately high myopia. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized trial with paired eye control. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five patients with myopia ranging from -8.00 to -12.00 diopters (D). INTERVENTION: For each patient, one eye received LASIK and the other one was implanted with an Artisan phakic intraocular lens. The treated eye and the surgical technique were randomized. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was spherical equivalent refraction. Main secondary outcome measures were the change of two or more lines and safety index (ratio postoperative to preoperative best-corrected visual acuity). RESULTS: One year after surgery, the mean spherical equivalent refraction was -0.74 +/- 0.67 D for LASIK-treated eyes and -0.95 +/- 0.45 D for Artisan-treated eyes, and the majority of LASIK-treated eyes (64%) and Artisan-treated eyes (60%) were within +/-1.00 D of the intended result. At 1 month, the mean spherical equivalent refraction was -0.28 +/- 0.71 D for LASIK and -1.07 +/- 0.59 D for Artisan (P < 0.01). The changes of two or more lines were in favor of Artisan (P < 0.05). The safety index was significantly better for Artisan (1.12 +/- 0.21) than for LASIK (0.99 +/- 0.17) at 1 year (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In cases of moderately high myopia, LASIK and Artisan phakic intraocular lenses seemed to produce a similar predictability. The best-corrected visual acuity and subjective evaluation of quality of vision were better for Artisan.     

Laser in situ keratomileusis for the correction of hyperopia from +1.25 to +5.00 diopters with the Technolas Keracor 117C laser

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy, predictability, stability, and safety of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in patients with hyperopia and to evaluate the visual and refractive results of the procedure. METHODS: LASIK was performed on 85 eyes of 53 patients for correction of hyperopia, with a preoperative mean manifest spherical equivalent refraction of +3.31 +/- 0.69 D (range, +1.25 to +5.00 D) and mean refractive astigmatism of +0.91 +/- 1.06 D (range, 0 to +3.00 D). The Carriazo-Barraquer (Moria) manual microkeratome was used to create the corneal flap, and laser ablation was performed using the Technolas Keracor 117C excimer laser with an ablation zone diameter of 6.0 mm and a transition zone diameter to 9.0 mm. Follow-up was 12 months for all patients. RESULTS: Refraction was stable by 3 months after surgery. At 1 year after LASIK, the mean manifest spherical equivalent refraction was +0.43 +/- 0.57 D (range, -1.25 to +2.00 D) and refractive astigmatism was reduced to a mean of 0.36 +/- 0.30 D (range, 0 to 1.00 D). Fifty-two eyes (61.2%) had a manifest spherical equivalent refraction within +/- 0.50 D of emmetropia, and 76 eyes (89.4%) were within +/- 1.00 D. Uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 in 21 eyes (24.7%) and 20/40 or better in 79 eyes (92.9%). Spectacle-corrected visual acuity was reduced by two lines in one eye (1.2%) and improved by two lines in five eyes (5.9%). There were no significant complications. CONCLUSION: LASIK was an effective, safe, and predictable procedure for the correction of hyperopia up to +5.00 D and hyperopic astigmatism up to +3.00 D with the Technolas Keracor 117C excimer laser. The large size of the corneal flap obtained by the Carriazo-Barraquer (Moria) manual microkeratome facilitated laser ablation entirely in the exposed corneal stromal bed.     

Artisan iris-claw phakic intraocular lens followed by laser in situ keratomileusis for high hyperopia

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety, efficacy, predictability, stability, complications, and patient satisfaction after Artisan phakic intraocular lens (IOL) implantation followed by laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for the correction of high hyperopia. SETTING: Instituto Oftalmólogico de Alicante, Alicante, Spain. METHODS: This prospective trial included 39 eyes with a mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) of 7.39 diopters (D) +/- 1.30 (SD) and a cylinder between 0 and -4.25 D. The Artisan iris-fixated phakic IOL (Ophtec) for hyperopia was implanted, and LASIK was performed 6 to 8 months later. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), refraction, endothelial cell loss (ECL), endothelium morphologic analysis, and patient satisfaction were recorded. The minimum follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS: At 1 year, 37 eyes (94.9%) were within +/-1.00 D of emmetropia and 31 eyes (79.5%) were within +/-0.50 D. Thirty-five eyes (89.7%) achieved a UCVA of 0.5 or better. There was a statistically significant decrease in BCVA after phakic IOL implantation, but this effect was corrected after LASIK. Nine eyes (23.1%) lost 1 line of BCVA; 7 eyes (17.9%) gained at least 1 line. One eye (2.6%) showed a change in SE greater than 1.0 D over the follow-up period. The mean ECL was 10.9%, but morphologic analysis suggested no additional damage caused by LASIK over that produced by phakic IOL surgery. Overall patient satisfaction was high. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of Artisan phakic IOL implantation and LASIK safely, predictably, and effectively reduced high hyperopia. A loss of 1 line of BCVA should be expected in about one third of eyes implanted with this IOL. Halos and glare at night remain a potential problem.     

Implantable contact lens for high myopia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and biocompatibility of a collagen polymer implantable contact lens (ICL) (Staar Collamer) as a posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens (IOL) to correct high myopia. SETTING: Departments of Ophthalmology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. METHODS: A Staar Collamer posterior chamber phakic IOL was implanted in 38 eyes of 22 patients with a mean age of 39 years (range 24 to 54 years). The mean preoperative myopia was -15.10 diopters (D) (range -7.75 to -29.00 D). Surgical implantation was performed through a 3.0 mm clear corneal sutureless incision using paraocular anesthesia. The patients were followed clinically up to 3 years. The mean follow-up was 13.6 months (range 6 to 24 months) for refractive data and 22.3 months (range 6 to 35 months) for complications. The possible inflammatory response to the ICL was measured using a laser flare meter in 12 eyes. RESULTS: Postoperatively, all eyes had a significant increase in uncorrected visual acuity, allowing all but 3 patients (5 eyes) to manage most activities without spectacles. The mean spherical equivalent refraction at the last examination was -2.00 D +/- 2.48 (SD) (range +0.13 to -13.00 D), within +/-1.00 D of the targeted refraction in 31 eyes (81.6%) and within +/-0.50 D in 27 eyes (71.1%). In eyes in which the preoperative myopia was less than -18.00 D (n = 28), the achieved refraction was within +/-1.00 D of the intended refraction in 27 eyes (96.4%) and within +/-0.50 D in 24 eyes (85.7%). The refraction remained stable with a statistically insignificant change (P >.05) at each interval during the follow-up. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved by 1 or more lines in 23 of 32 eyes (71.9%) at 1 year. Two eyes (6.3%) lost 1 line of BCVA. Laser flare photometry showed normal aqueous flare values (11.71 +/- 6.61 photon counts/ms) in the 12 eyes measured at least 6 months after ICL implantation. Pupillary block glaucoma requiring surgical intervention occurred in 3 patients (7.9%). One patient (2.6%) developed cataract 1.5 years after ICL implantation; both ICLs were removed, and the refractive errors were corrected by lensectomy and implantation of low-power posterior chamber IOLs. One patient (2.6%) showed progression of dry macular degeneration at 17 months. CONCLUSION: At 1 year, ICL implantation had good visual and refractive results with excellent biocompatibility. Long-term follow-up is required to confirm that significant complications do not occur in most patients over time.     

Recovery of uncorrected visual acuity after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for low myopia

PURPOSE: To compare uncorrected visual acuity and refractive error in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) between 1 week and 6 months after surgery. METHODS: All eyes underwent PRK or LASIK with the VisX StarS2 excimer laser. We retrospectively analyzed data from 77 random eyes of 77 patients in the PRK group and 76 eyes of 76 patients in the LASIK group. All eyes had a low myopic refractive error (spherical equivalent range, -0.88 diopters (D) to -5.13 D; mean PRK. -2.8 +/- 0.20 D: LASIK, -2.5 +/- 0.22 D). Uncorrected visual acuity and manifest refractive error were evaluated 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Each eye undergoing PRK was paired with an eye undergoing LASIK for a similar level of spherical equivalent. Mean uncorrected visual acuity after 1 week was 0.85 +/- 0.06 (20/25, logMAR 0.12 +/- 0.04) for the PRK group and 1.01 +/- 0.06 (20/20, logMAR 0.01 +/- 0.03) for the LASIK group (p < 0.001). Mean spherical equivalent after 1 week was 0.23 +/- 0.12 D for the PRK group and -0.02 +/- 0.07 D for the LASIK group (p = 0.02). Mean uncorrected visual acuity after 1 month was 1.03 +/- 0.05 (20/20, logMAR 0.02 +/- 0.03) for the PRK group and 1.05 +/- 0.05 (20/20. -0.02 +/- 0.03) for the LASIK group (p = 0.16). Mean spherical equivalent after I month was 0.19 +/- 0.10 D for the PRK group and -0.02 +/- 0.09 D for the LASIK group. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.02), but was unlikely to be clinically significant. Mean uncorrected visual acuity after 6 months was 1.05 +/- 0.06 (20/20, logMAR -0.01 +/- 0.03) for the PRK group and 1.06 +/- 0.05 (20/20, logMAR -0.14 +/- 0.03) for the LASIK group (p = 0.41). Mean spherical equivalent after 6 months was 0.02 +/- 0.08 D for the PRK group and 0.00 +/- 0.08 D for the LASIK group (p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Uncorrected visual acuity 1 week after surgery is significantly better in eyes undergoing LASIK than in eyes undergoing PRK. Both procedures provide functional vision by 1 week after surgery. The difference does not relate to refractive error, which was similar between the two groups, but to differences in healing of the epithelium. By 1 month after surgery, there is no difference in mean uncorrected visual acuity between eyes that undergo PRK or LASIK for low myopia.     

Bioptics by angle-supported phakic lenses and photorefractive keratectomy

PURPOSE: To assess efficacy and safety of the combination of angle-supported phakic intraocular lenses (IOLs) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of myopia and astigmatism. METHODS: Prospective, non-randomized single-surgeon study on 48 patients (76 eyes) undergoing angle-supported phakic IOL implantation with surgical peripheral iridectomy, followed 2 to 3 months later by PRK to correct residual refractive error. Twenty-three patients (33 eyes) achieved good uncorrected visual acuity with IOL implantation alone and did not undergo PRK. Thus, the study was completed by 25 patients (43 eyes) with preoperative mean defocus equivalent (DEQ) of 15.73 D (SD 4.67 D) and mean astigmatism of -2.87 D (SD 1.39 D). RESULTS: Eight months after PRK, mean spherical equivalent was -0.08. Mean DEQ was 0.47 D (SD 0.37); 42/43 eyes (98%) were within +/-1 D of DEQ, and 33/43 eyes (77%) within +/-0.5 D. Mean uncorrected visual acuity was 0.7 (SD 1.9). Safety index was 1.25; efficacy index 1.11. Best-corrected visual acuity improvement (0.16) was statistically significant (95% CI: 1.1 to 2). Halos were moderate in 6/25 patients (24%); severe in 1/25 patients (4%). Endothelial cell density decreased by -6.6%. Pain after PRK was severe in 3/25 patients (12%) and moderate in 13/25 patients (52%). Complications were recurrent iridocyclitis in one eye, transient ocular hypertension in two eyes, and incomplete iridectomy in one eye. CONCLUSIONS: Angle-supported phakic IOLs followed by adjustment by PRK offer good efficacy, predictability, and safety to manage large refractive myopic errors.     

LASIK for the correction of residual refractive errors from previous surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) efficacy in correcting residual refractive errors after corneal or intraocular surgery (penetrating keratoplasty, radial keratotomy, photorefractive keratectomy, phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, penetrating ocular trauma and phakic IOL implantation). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed LASIK in 87 eyes of 62 patients previously operated by means of other surgical techniques to completely correct the residual refractive error. We report the mean refractive error (in terms of spherical equivalent refraction), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and spectacle corrected visual acuity (SCVA) before and after the surgical procedure. We also analyze safety and stability, in these results with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Mean preoperative spherical equivalent was -5.25 +/- 2.1 diopters (D). Postoperatively, mean spherical equivalent was -0.70 +/- 0.65 D, 76% of eyes were between plano and -1.00 D and 99% were between plano and -2.25 D. At 12 months follow-up the change in the refractive result was equal or less than 0.5 D in 94% of eyes. Preoperatively SCVA was 1.0 or better in 24.13% of cases, and 0.5 or better in 89.65%. Postoperative SCVA was 1.0 or better in 26.43% and 0.5 or better in 95%. Preoperative UCVA was 0.1 in 2 eyes, 0.05 in 4 eyes and count fingers in the rest of the cases. Postoperative UCVA was 1.0 or better in 1.1% and 0.5 or better in 70.1%. We had an extremely low complication rate in this particular group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: LASIK can be successfully used to correct residual refractive errors after other surgical procedures.     

Randomized bilateral comparison of excimer laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for 2.50 to 8.00 diopters of myopia

OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness, safety, and stability of excimer laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for low-to-moderate myopia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, bilateral study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients with a manifest refraction of -2.50 to -8.00 diopters (D) participated. INTERVENTION: For each patient, one eye received LASIK and the other received PRK. The first eye treated, and surgical method in the first eye, were randomized. Both eyes were treated by the same surgeon during the same operative session with a Summit Omnimed I laser (6-mm-diameter ablation) and a Chiron Automated Corneal Shaper. Follow-up was 90% at 1 and 2 years. RESULTS: At baseline, mean (+/-standard deviation) spherical equivalent manifest refraction was -4.80 +/- 1.60 D in LASIK-treated eyes and -4.70 +/- 1.50 D in PRK-treated eyes. At 1 day after surgery, 81% of patients (21 eyes) reported no pain in the LASIK-treated eye, whereas no patient (0%) reported being pain-free in the PRK-treated eye. At 3 to 4 days after surgery, 18 (80%) LASIK-treated eyes either improved or remained within 1 line of baseline spectacle-corrected visual acuity; only 10 (45%) PRK-treated eyes achieved this result. At 2 years after surgery, 18 (61%) LASIK- and 10 (36%) PRK-treated eyes achieved an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better, with no statistically significant difference in refractive outcome between the two techniques. Quantitative videokeratography showed more regularity after LASIK. Complications were similar in the two groups. Patients preferred LASIK by a margin of 2 to 1 at 1 year but showed no preference at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Using a 6-mm-diameter single-pass, large area ablation and an automated microkeratome to treat myopia of -2.50 to -8.00 D with 1.00 D or less astigmatism in 1994, the authors used LASIK to produce a higher percentage of eyes with an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better, more regular postoperative corneal topography, less postoperative pain, and more rapid recovery of baseline spectacle-corrected visual acuity than PRK. Both LASIK and PRK achieved successful correction of low-to-moderate myopia at 1 and 2 years after surgery.     

Phakic refractive lens (Medennium) for correction of +4.00 to +6.00 diopters: 1-year follow-up

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy and safety of phakic refractive lens (PRL) implantation to correct high hyperopia. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for this prospective, observer-masked, interventional study were spherical equivalent > or =+4.00 diopters (D) of cycloplegic hyperopia, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) > or =0.5, anterior chamber depth > or =3 mm, and mesopic pupil size < or =6 mm. Lenses were implanted in all cases under regional anesthesia using forceps. RESULTS: Sixteen eyes of nine patients were included in the study. Mean preoperative spherical equivalent refraction was +5.65+/-1.41 D (range: +3.25 to +5.75 D). Mean 1-year postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was +0.07+/-0.43 D (range: -0.50 to 0.75 D). Fifteen (93.75%) eyes were within +/-0.50 D of emmetropia, and 16 (100%) eyes were within +/-1.00 D of emmetropia. Safety and efficacy indexes were 0.9 and 0.8, respectively. Eight (50%) eyes needed LASIK to correct residual astigmatism. Five (31.25%) eyes lost one line of BSCVA; no eye lost two or more lines of BSCVA. The BSCVA did not increase in any eye. No significant intraocular complications developed. CONCLUSIONS: Phakic refractive lens implantation to correct high hyperopia seems to be a safe and accurate procedure. A mild but significant loss in BSCVA can be anticipated.