Comparing Plusoptix A09 photorefractometer results with autorefractometer using Bland-Altman analysis

目的：比较儿童患者中散瞳或不散瞳状态下使用Plusoptix A09摄影验光仪与普通自动验光仪的准确性。

方法：共评估了90例患儿180眼的屈光状态。在散瞳或不散瞳状态下使用Plusoptix A09摄影验光仪检测屈光度,并与散瞳后使用普通自动验光仪测得的结果进行比较。使用Bland-Altman分析比较等效球镜、球镜度数、柱镜度数和柱镜轴J0、J45值。

结果：患者年龄3～13(7.48±3.01)岁。未散瞳状态下的Plusoptix A09摄影验光仪检测所得球镜度数和等效球镜与散瞳后的普通自动验光仪结果之间存在显著差异(P<0.001),但是在柱镜度数、J0和J45值没有发现显著差异(P>0.05)。散瞳后Plusoptix A09摄影验光仪检测的球镜度数、等效球镜和散瞳后普通自动验光仪结果之间存在显著差异(P<0.001),但是在柱镜度数、J0和J45值没有发现显著差异(P>0.05)。Bland-Altman相关性分析显示在球镜度数、柱镜度数和等效球镜的测量中未散瞳及散瞳的Plusoptix A09检测结果与散瞳后的普通自动验光仪检测结果有很好的一致性,但在J0和J45测量上一致性较差。

结论：为了检测儿童的屈光度,散瞳或不散瞳状态下Plusoptix A09可以得到可靠结果。但是在测量柱镜轴和高屈光度时,这项检测并不合适。这一设备是检测、筛查不合作儿童屈光度时的有效选择。     

Comparison of non-cycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic retinoscopy in children

AIM: To compare the results of noncycloplegic photorefraction, cycloplegic photorefraction and cycloplegic refraction in preschool and non-verbal children. METHODS: One hundred and ninety-six eyes of 98 children (50 females, 48 males) were included in the study. Firstly, non-cycloplegic photorefraction was achieved with Plusoptix A09; secondly, cycloplegic photorefraction was carried out with Plusoptix A09 after 10 min cyclopentolate. Finally, 30min after instillation of twice cyclopentolate, cycloplegic refraction was obtained with autorefraction and/or standard retinoscopy. Spheric equivalent, spheric power, cylindric power and cylindrical axis measurements were statistically compared. RESULTS: The mean age was 28.8±18.5mo (range 12-72mo). The differences in spherical equivalent, spheric power and cylindrical power measured by the three methods were found statistically significant (P<0.05). The spherical equivalent and spheric power measured by cycloplegic photorefraction were statistically higher than the measurements of the other methods (P<0.05). The cylindrical power measured by cycloplegic refraction was statistically lower than the measurements of the photorefraction methods (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in cylindrical axis measurements between three methods (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: For the determination of refractive errors in children, the Plusoptix A09 measurements give incorrect results after instillation of cyclopentolate. Additionally, the cylindrical power measured by Plusoptix A09 with or without cycloplegia is higher. However, the non-cycloplegic Plusoptix A09 measures spheric equivalent and spheric power similar to cycloplegic refraction measurements in preschool and non-verbal children.     

Accuracy of Plusoptix S04 in children and teens

Objective: To compare refraction measurements of young patients obtained using Plusoptix S04 with those obtained using cycloplegic retinoscopy.Design: Cohort study.Participants: Data were collected from 64 patients (128 eyes), aged 2–19 years.Methods: All eyes underwent photorefraction using Plusoptix S04 with or without cycloplegia and cycloplegic retinoscopy. Eyes with a maximum spherical and cylinder range of −7.00 to +5.00 were excluded from the study.Results: The difference in spherical equivalents between Plusoptix S04 without cycloplegia and cycloplegic retinoscopy was more than ± 0.50 D in 70.2% of the eyes. In 100 eyes (78.1%), photorefraction underestimated the hyperopic refractive error. The cylinder powers determined by Plusoptix S04 and cycloplegic retinoscopy were similar. The difference in the spherical equivalents between Plusoptix S04 with cycloplegia and cycloplegic retinoscopy was + 0.50 D in 89.8% of the eyes. In 96 eyes (75%), photorefraction with cycloplegia overestimated the hyperopic refractive error. The difference in cylindrical power determined using Plusoptix S04 with cycloplegia and cycloplegic retinoscopy was statistically significant (paired ttest, p = 0.009).Conclusions: The statistically significant difference in spherical equivalent values obtained using Plusoptix S04 with or without cycloplegia and cycloplegic retinoscopy suggests that Plusoptix S04 is more in evaluating the cylinder power and axis in young patients. Our results also suggest that Plusoptix S04 is not an accurate tool to estimate the refraction in children.     

Accuracy of a new photorefractometer in young and adult patients

Background Photorefraction can be carried out in both eyes simultaneously from a distance and is therefore suitable for examination of children. This study evaluated the accuracy of a commercially available photorefractometer (PowerRefractor, Plusoptix, Erlangen, Germany) and investigated whether the working distance relaxes the accommodation sufficiently without cycloplegia.Methods Photorefractometer readings were compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy. Because of the limited working range the group of patients consisted of low and moderate ametropic eyes within a spherical power of –7.0 to +5.0 D. One hundred and ninety-two eyes from 104 patients (2–81 years) were photorefracted under cycloplegia. A subgroup of 83 eyes from 46 patients was additionally refracted without cycloplegia.Results Under cycloplegia, the PowerRefractor measured the spherical equivalent slightly below that of cycloplegic retinoscopy (too much minus). The mean difference in spherical equivalent was –0.12±0.91 D (SD). The mean difference of cylindrical power was –0.17±0.73 D. The mean weighted axis difference was 0.61±0.71 D which is comparable to an axis deviation of 18° at a cylinder power of 1.00 D. Without cycloplegia, the mean difference of the spherical equivalent was –0.73±1.25 D. The mean difference of cylindrical power was –0.20±0.65 D. The mean weighted axis difference was 0.44±0.58 D which is comparable to an axis deviation of 13° at a cylinder power of 1.00 D.Conclusions Without cycloplegia, the spherical equivalent of the PowerRefractor tends to be underestimated due to uncontrolled accommodation, especially in children. Cycloplegia improves the accuracy in evaluating the spherical equivalent, but decreases the accuracy of cylinder power and axis.     

A comparison of photorefraction and retinoscopy in children

PURPOSE: To compare the results of photorefraction measurement obtained with a Plusoptix CR03 to those of cycloplegic retinoscopy as a standard refraction method in children. METHODS: We assessed the refractive status of 204 eyes in 204 healthy children. The values acquired via photorefraction (noncycloplegic refraction) with a Plusoptix CR03 device were compared with those obtained via cycloplegic retinoscopy. Both methods were used in the same eyes and in all children. The paired tt-test and Pearson's correlation analysis were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean age was 7.1 +/- 2.4 years (range, 9 months to 14 years). The average spherical refractive error was +0.05 +/- 0.65 D for photorefraction versus +0.75 +/- 0.77 D for cycloplegic retinoscopy (average difference, -0.70 D; p < 0.001), with moderate correlation between measures (r = 0.63). The average cylinder power was +0.43 +/- 0.38 D for photorefraction versus +0.29 +/- 0.38 D for cycloplegic retinoscopy (average difference, +0.14 D; p < 0.001), with moderate correlation between measures (r = 0.70). The average spherical equivalent was +0.26 +/- 0.63 D for photorefraction versus +0.90 +/- 0.76 D for cycloplegic retinoscopy (average difference, -0.64 D; p < 0.001), with moderate correlation between measures (r = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: The Plusoptix CR03 device tends toward minus overcorrection in children, resulting in overdiagnosis of myopia. Studies of a population of subjects with a larger range of ametropia will be required to validate this instrument as a screening tool.     

Cycloplegic refraction in preschool children: comparisons between the hand-held autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor and retinoscopy

Aims: It is common for refraction to be measured using different testing methods in children, with much debate still ongoing on the preferred method. Therefore, we compared cycloplegic refraction measurements using three objective methods in a large cohort of children. Methods: We present the findings from a total of 51 children who were recruited and examined as part of the Strabismus, Amblyopia and Refractive error in Singapore preschool children (STARS) study. Each child underwent a comprehensive eye examination, which included cycloplegic refraction using a hand‐held autorefractor (Retinomax), a table mounted autorefractor (Canon FK‐1) and streak retinoscopy. Spherical equivalent (SE) was calculated as (sphere + half of minus cylinder) and astigmatism was determined using the negative cylindrical component. Results: The current study sample consisted of 29 boys and 22 girls aged between 24 and 72 months (mean age 52.3 months). The mean spherical equivalent (SE) using the table‐mounted autorefractor (1.03 ± 1.64 D) was not significantly different from the streak retinoscopy (1.09 ± 1.58 D, p = 0.66). However, the mean SE using the hand‐held Retinomax (0.80 ± 1.43 D) was significantly different (more ‘minus’p = 0.0004) to streak retinoscopy. The astigmatism measured using the hand held (?0.89 ± 0.51 D) and table‐mounted autorefractor (?0.83 ± 0.61 D) were significantly greater than that obtained with streak retinoscopy (?0.58 ± 0.56, p = 0.0003). Conclusions: The table‐mounted autorefractor provided a reading more similar to that of streak retinoscopy than to that of the hand‐held autorefractor. However, there were only small differences in mean SE (<0.32 D) between the hand‐held Retinomax and the other methods, which will have implications in research investigations of refractive error.     

A Comparison of Refraction Defects in Childhood Measured Using Plusoptix S09, 2WIN Photorefractometer,Benchtop Autorefractometer,and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy

Purpose: To compare Plusoptix (Gmbh, Nuremberg, Germany), 2WIN (Adaptica, Padua, Italy), the benchtop refractometer (Auto-Kerato-Refractometer KR-8900; Topcon Co, Tokyo, Japan), and retinoscopy with regard to the consistencies. Materials and Methods: In our prospective study, 200 eyes of 100 patients were included. We analyzed the demographics and characteristics of the patients, the percentage of patients from whom measurements could not be obtained, the measurements from both patients’ eyes of pupil diameter, spherical, cylindrical, axis, and spherical equivalence. Results: The mean age ± SD was 7.8±4.5 years (range, 1–18 years). Pupil diameter measurements were found to be consistent (Cronbach’s alpha value >0.8). The sphere and spherical equivalence measurements for both eyes were found to be consistent with each other in all apparatus (Cronbach’s alpha value >0.8). However, consistency was found to be lower in cylindrical values and the Jackson cross-cylinder measurements at 0° and 45° axis were found to be inconsistent with each other (Cronbach’s alpha value <0.8). Conclusions: While consistency was observed in all methods in terms of sphere and spherical equivalence, consistency dropped in cylindrical values and no consistency was observed in axis values. It is important to take this point into consideration, especially in axis measurements.     

Clinical evaluation of the L80 autorefractometer

Background: A clinical evaluation of the L80 wave+ autorefractometer (Visionix Luneau, Chartres, France) was performed to evaluate its validity and repeatability compared with non‐cycloplegic subjective refraction. The L80 wave+ autorefractometer is a new instrument based on the Hartmann‐Shack principle that has a specific autorefraction function using the wavefront device and can also measure keratometry, topography of the cornea and higher‐order aberrations. Methods: Refractive error measurements were obtained from 100 eyes of 50 subjects (age, 25 ± 2.71 years) subjectively by one masked practitioner and objectively with the L80 wave+ autorefractometer (with a 3.0 mm pupil) by a second practitioner. Intra‐test and inter‐test (within a week after the initial objective measures) variability was assessed on 28 new subjects (56 eyes). Results: The results of the objective and subjective measurements of refractive error were very similar (mean difference 0.03 ± 0.47 D, p = 0.49 for sphere; 0.05 ± 0.27 D, p = 0.06 for cylinder; 0.06 ± 0.44 D, p = 0.20 for spherical equivalent; 0.01 ± 0.13 D, p = 0.37 for J₀ and ‐0.005 ± 0.12 D, p = 0.69 for J₄₅). High intra‐test and inter‐test repeatability were demonstrated for all parameters measured and found comparable with other clinical autorefractors. Conclusion: The L80 wave+ autorefractometer represents a reliable and valid objective refractive tool for general optometric practice.     

Comparison of the Refractive Measurements with Hand-held Autorefractometer,Table-mounted Autorefractometer and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy in Children

PurposeTo evaluate the performance of the hand-held and table-top autorefractokeratometer in measuring refractive errors by comparing them with cycloplegic retinoscopy.MethodsIncluded in the study were 112 eyes of 112 pediatric patients whose mean age was 6.78 ± 2.61 years (range, 2 to 12 years). The refractive errors of all the eyes were measured with and without cycloplegia using a hand held autorefractokeratometer (Retinomax K-plus 3), table top autorefractokeratometer (Canon RK-F1) and performing cycloplegic retinoscopy. The spherical equivalent, cylindrical axis and keratometer values were statistically compared.ResultsThe mean spherical equivalent obtained from the Retinomax K-plus 3 was significantly less hyperopic than that of Canon RK-F1 (p = 0.004) before cycloplegia. When the Bland Altman analysis was performed in comparisons of spherical equivalent values measured with the Retinomax K-plus 3, Canon RK-F1 and cycloplegic retinoscopy, it was seen that almost all of the differences between the measurements remained within the range of ±2 standard deviation. Good agreement was found between Retinomax K-plus 3 and Canon RK-F1 for the Jackson cross-cylinder values at axis 0° and 45°; keratometer values respectively.ConclusionsThe refractive error components were highly correlated between the two instruments and cycloplegic retinoscopy.     

Repeatability and agreement of ARK-30 autorefraction after cataract surgery

Background: To evaluate the intra‐test variability of ARK‐30 handheld autorefractor and the agreement with subjective refraction and retinoscopy after uneventful cataract surgery. Design: Prospective and non‐randomized study that included 6 visits by patients undergoing uneventful cataract surgery at IOBA (Instituto de Oftalmobiología Aplicada) Eye Institute (University of Valladolid). Participants: The mean age of the 79 patients was 66.5 years (range 23–90 years). For the 124 eyes, the mean spherical equivalent of the sample at baseline visit was ?3.59 ± 6.28 D (range ?21.00 D to +4.44 D). Methods: Automated refraction was performed on follow‐up visits 1 day and weekly for 4 weeks. Retinoscopy and subjective refraction were conducted at the Week 4 follow up. Main Outcome Measures: Automated refraction. Results: Sphere, cylinder and mean spherical equivalent, J₀ and J₄₅ coefficient variabilities were low in all visits. Standard deviations and the limits of agreement were smallest for the last visit. Subjective refraction sphere and cylinder values were more positive than autorefraction by 0.12 ± 0.53 D (P = 0.031) and 0.23 ± 0.42 D (P < 0.001), respectively. Comparison between autorefraction and retinoscopy showed a similar trend with the sphere and cylinder differences, 0.32 ± 0.77 D and 0.38 ± 0.43 D (P < 0.05), respectively. Conclusions: The ARK‐30 is sufficiently accurate and repeatable for automated refraction after uneventful cataract surgery. This instrument may be useful for monitoring refractive outcome in these patients.     

学龄前儿童电脑验光和检影验光的对比研究

目的:比较电脑验光和检影验光在学龄前儿童客观屈光检查中的应用价值。方法:门诊屈光不正的学龄前儿童98例196眼,年龄3～6岁,使用10g/L阿托品眼膏涂眼,2次/d,连用4d,第5d停药后分别使用电脑验光和检影验光,结果进行统计学分析比较。结果:比较电脑验光和检影验光的结果显示远视球镜均值电脑验光法(2.70±2.75D)所测结果低于检影验光法(2.99±2.09D),行配对t检验,两种方法结果比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);近视球镜均值电脑验光法(-2.74±1.25D)所测结果高于检影验光法(-2.35±2.18D),结果比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);散光轴向两种方法比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而散光度数值均值比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:电脑验光和检影验光法在学龄前儿童散瞳验光应用中各有利弊,临床工作中需结合使用。     

Precision in automated refraction

Forty-six eyes were examined with automated refraction with the Nidek 1000-AR autorefractometer to determine how large variation there was in readings of each patient, under dry conditions (without cycloplegia) and in atropine and cyclopentolate cycloplegia. Likewise, the differences between methods of cycloplegia were analysed with regard to sphere, cylinder power, and axis. Overall the variation in each set of measurements was greatest for the spherical component, and a larger variation was found in the youngest age group. Variation in cylinder power and axis was small. Cycloplegics had a significant influence on the spherical component of automated refraction, and a mean difference of 0.76D was found between atropine and dry readings, and 0.23D between atropine and cyclopentolate readings. The differences between cycloplegic and dry readings in cylinder power and axis were insignificant. A regression model relating spherical power of dry and cyclopentolate automated refraction was developed, and the predictive power of this equation was tested.     

Ametropia in Down''s syndrome

Non-cycloplegic video-refraction and cycloplegic retinoscopy refraction results are reported for a Cambridge population of binocular, non-strabismic infants aged 7–9 months.
Method: The Cambridge vision screening programme detected high refractive errors by measuring the accommodative response to a 75 cm distance toy using the VPR-1 video-refractor. Of 4452 infants screened, the binocular mean refraction was −0.7 D, i.e. +0.62 D accommodative 'lag' or focus error (SD = ± 0.92 D). Seven percent had + 1.5 D refraction, i.e. + 2.8 D focus error or accommodative 'lag' in any one meridian. Of those followed up, refraction was also measured by cycloplegic retinoscopy (cycloRet) and VPR-1 (cyclo VPR) after 1 drop 1% cyclopentolate.
Results: Of the 223 infants who had large lags of accommodation + 2.8 D: (a) High hyperopia of + 3.5 D in any one meridian, by cyclo-Ret, was found in 173/223 (78%) of these infants. The mean cyclo-Ret spherical equivalent was + 3.8 ± 1.8 DS and unsigned astigmatism 0.8 ± 0.7 DC. The magnitude of the largest accommodative lag was significantly related to the cyclo-Ret most-positive-meridional power ( r = 0.4, P < 0.0001, n = 223). The majority orientation of the largest (non-cyclo-VPR) lag power was horizontal (WTR astigmatism). (b) The latest longitudinal refractive changes in this highly hyperopic group and also a control group will be described in terms of mean spherical equivalent, astigmatism and anisometropia.
Conclusion: The large lags of accommodation can reveal infants with highly hyperopic meridians. These infants may require early partial spectacle correction.
Acknowledgement: Supported by the Medical Research Council (Grant G7908507).     

便携式电脑验光仪筛查屈光不正的可行性探讨

目的 探讨便携式电脑验光仪的准确性及用其筛查屈光不正的可行性.设计诊断试验.研究对象2008年6月至9月南通大学附属医院眼科就诊的屈光不正患者65例（130眼）.方法 对所有病例分别行SHIN-NIPPON SRH-2000便携式电脑验光仪验光及视网膜检影.主要指标屈光值（球镜度数、柱镜度数及轴向）的差异性检验、相关分析及受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线分析.结果 以视网膜检影为金标准,电脑验光的球镜度数轻度偏正,其中睫状肌麻痹后电脑验光与检影的差值为（＋0.33±0.56）D,呈高度正相关（r=0.98,P〈0.01）,差异有统计学意义（t=6.87,P〈0.01） 电脑验光的柱镜度数轻度偏负,其中睫状肌麻痹后电脑验光与检影的差值为（-0.23±0.45）D,呈中度正相关（r=0.81,P〈0.01）,差异有统计学意义（t=-5.85,P〈0.01）.电脑验光在睫状肌麻痹前后比较无统计学差异（球镜度数t=1.31,P=0.26 柱镜度数t=-0.28,P=0.78）.电脑验光对散光的检出率高,但主要是≤0.75D的低度散光,且与视网膜检影的轴向差值多数≤150.以视网膜检影的等效球镜为参考指标,电脑验光的ROC曲线下面积〉0.95（睫状肌麻痹后为0.984,睫状肌麻痹前为0.979）.结论 便携式电脑验光仪筛查屈光不正的准确性与视网膜检影一致,可用在群体眼病流行病学调查中筛查屈光不正.     

角膜曲率计在测量角膜散光中的作用

目的 :探讨角膜曲率计检查在测量角膜散光中的作用。方法 :采用角膜曲率计、散瞳验光、显然验光三种方法对屈光不正患者 2 2 4只眼进行检查。结果 :本组病例中散光度数以 1 0 0D以下为主。散瞳验光和显然验光所测出的散光轴位与角膜曲率计所测出的散光轴位比较 ,差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5)。在散光度数上 ,散瞳验光和显然验光测出的散光度数与角膜曲率计所测出的散光度数比较 ,差异有非常显著性 (P <0 0 1 )。散瞳验光与显然验光之间在散光度数上比较 ,差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5)。结论 :角膜曲率计对于散光轴位的测量在散瞳验光和显然验光中起到重要的辅助作用     

How accurate is the hand-held refractor Retinomax(R) in measuring cycloplegic refraction: a further evaluation

AIMS To assess the agreement between the hand-held autorefractor Retinomax(R) and three different on-table autorefractors when measuring cycloplegic refraction in subjects with small and high ametropia. To assess the agreement between the cycloplegic refraction using the Retinomax(R) and by retinoscopy in children with small and high ametropia. METHODS Part A.276 subjects were refracted under cycloplegia using both the Retinomax(R) and an on-table infrared automated refractor (Topcon RM-A 6000, Nidek AR 800 or Nikon NR 5000). They were separated into subjects withsmall ametropia (mean sphere 3.5 D hyperopia, > 3 D myopia). The agreement between both types of refractors regarding the different refractive components was assessed for the whole group and for the two subgroups of small and high ametropia. Part B. 48 infants were refracted under cycloplegia by retinoscopy and by the Retinomax(R). The agreement between both methods of refraction was analyzed in the same manner as in part A. RESULTS Part A. No significant bias was found between the two types of refractors with regard to the spherical equivalent. The 95% limits of agreement were +/- 1 D. Although no clinically significant bias was found with regard to the cylinder power in the 276 subjects, it was found that the 95% limits of agreement were much better (+/- 0.75 D) in small ametropia subjects than in high ametropia subjects (-2.1 to +1.3 D). No significant bias was found with regard to the axis determination. Part B. No significant bias was found between the Retinomax(R) and retinoscopic measurements with regard to the spherical equivalent. The 95% limits of agreement were -1.36 to +1.76 D. However, the mean difference for spheres and cylinders showed a positive bias and a negative bias, respectively, suggesting more positive spheres and larger cylinders when measured by the Retinomax(R) compared to retinoscopy. This was particularly obvious in cases of high ametropia. CONCLUSION Compared to retinoscopy and on-table autorefraction, the hand-held refractor Retinomax(R) is accurate in any ametropia with respect to the spherical equivalent. In small ametropia, there is a good accuracy when measuring the three refractive components (sphere, cylinder and axis). The accuracy decreases in high ametropia, especially with regard to the cylinder power.     

Strabological results in patients with macular translocation surgery and counterrotation of the globe as a secondary procedure

introduction?Over the last decades, various methods have been investigated for preschool screening for amblyogenic ametropia. The SureSight is a new hand-held wavefront-analyzing autorefractor designed for screening. methods?A total of 338 children (3¹/₂–4¹/₂years-old) were examined in their kindergartens without cycloplegia using the new instrument. Of these, 56 had a cycloplegic retinoscopy as a reference measurement. Hyperopia ≥3?dpt, myopia ≥1?dpt, astigmatism ≥1?dpt and anisometropia ≥1?dpt were considered amblyogenic ametropia. results?Testability was 99.4%. Accuracy was high for cylinder power and axis but poor for the spherical equivalent. Sensitivity was 41% for the detection of amblyogenic hyperopia, 95% for astigmatism and 75% for anisometropia, with specificity values of 92, 79 and 73%. conclusion?The high testability and accuracy for cylinder power and axis are the strong points. The poor accuracy for the spherical equivalent is probably caused by the lack of cycloplegia. At present, non-cycloplegic autorefractor screening cannot be recommended due to the low specificity. Our findings support the advice that objective refraction in childhood must be performed with cycloplegia.     

Long-term refractive outcomes of posterior chamber phakic (spheric and toric implantable collamer lens) intraocular lens implantation

To report the long-term refractive outcomes, safety, predictability, efficacy and complications of 349 eyes treated with posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses (pIOLs). A retrospective review of consecutive clinical cases of patients who underwent spheric implantable collamer lens (ICL) and toric ICL (TICL) implantation. The study included 349 eyes of 216 patients with sphere between +8 to ?24 diopters (D) and 0 to ?6.5 D of astigmatism. Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences between preoperative and postoperative refractive outcomes. Main outcome measures were preoperative and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), spherical and cylindrical errors and spherical equivalent and significant postoperative complications. 194 eyes were treated with TICL and 155 eyes with ICL. The mean age of the patients was 29 ± 6.7 years. The mean preoperative sphere was ?10.35 ± 5.1 D (+8 to ?24) and the postoperative sphere was ?0.09 ± 1.06 D (+3.25 to ?6.5), p < 0.001. Preoperative cylinder was ?2.63 ± 1.44 (0 to ?6.5 D) and postoperative cylinder was ?0.97 ± 0.89 D (0 to ?3.5), p < 0.001. The preoperative mean spherical equivalent was ?11.6 ± 5.12 D (+7.875 to ?25.625) and postoperative spherical equivalent was ?0.52 ± 1.03 (+2.25 to ?6.75), p < 0.001. The mean preoperative UDVA was 1.72 ± 0.49 and postoperative UDVA was 0.23 ± 0.22, p < 0.001. The mean preoperative CDVA was 0.21 ± 0.17 and postoperative CDVA was 0.12 ± 0.138, p < 0.001. The implantation of posterior chamber pIOLs is a safe, predictable and effective strategy to manage refractive errors during long-term follow-up.