PURPOSE: To compare the results of laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and implantable contact lenses (ICL) in the correction of moderate/high myopia. METHODS: Five hundred fifty-nine LASIK eyes from the Davis Duehr Eye Center, Madison, WI, and 210 ICL eyes from the 14-site U.S. FDA Clinical Trial for ICL for Myopia were compared. These series were concurrently operated on with 8 to 12 D of preoperative myopia and were examined at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The mean baseline myopia was slightly higher in the ICL group, (ICL: -9.8 +/- 1.7 D; LASIK: -9.1 +/- 0.97 D). BSCVA, UCVA, and refractions were collected prospectively in both series. RESULTS: Every index of BSCVA, UCVA, predictability of refraction, and stability of refraction studied favored the ICL over the LASIK procedure. All but one of the indices (UCVA % 20/40 or better) were statistically significant in at least half of the time periods studied. At 6-month follow-up, both the loss of two or more lines (ICL: 0%; LASIK: 2%; p = 0.05) and gain of two or more lines (ICL: 7%; LASIK: 3%; p = 0.04) of BSCVA were better with the ICL. Similarly, efficacy outcomes with the ICL were better with predictability (attempted versus achieved +/-1.0 D) of the ICL at 90%; 76% with LASIK (p < 0.001). In this highly myopic series, UCVA 20/20 or better was 50% with ICL compared with 35% with LASIK (p < 0.001). No serious complications occurred in either series of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The ICL was safer and more effective than LASIK and appears to be a viable alternative to corneal refractive excimer surgery in the treatment of moderate to high myopia.
PURPOSE: To compare the results of laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and implantable contact lenses (ICL) in the correction of moderate/high myopia. METHODS: Five hundred fifty-nine LASIK eyes from the Davis Duehr Eye Center, Madison, WI, and 210 ICL eyes from the 14-site U.S. FDA Clinical Trial for ICL for Myopia were compared. These series were concurrently operated on with 8 to 12 D of preoperative myopia and were examined at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The mean baseline myopia was slightly higher in the ICL group, (ICL: -9.8 +/- 1.7 D; LASIK: -9.1 +/- 0.97 D). BSCVA, UCVA, and refractions were collected prospectively in both series. RESULTS: Every index of BSCVA, UCVA, predictability of refraction, and stability of refraction studied favored the ICL over the LASIK procedure. All but one of the indices (UCVA % 20/40 or better) were statistically significant in at least half of the time periods studied. At 6-month follow-up, both the loss of two or more lines (ICL: 0%; LASIK: 2%; p = 0.05) and gain of two or more lines (ICL: 7%; LASIK: 3%; p = 0.04) of BSCVA were better with the ICL. Similarly, efficacy outcomes with the ICL were better with predictability (attempted versus achieved +/-1.0 D) of the ICL at 90%; 76% with LASIK (p < 0.001). In this highly myopic series, UCVA 20/20 or better was 50% with ICL compared with 35% with LASIK (p < 0.001). No serious complications occurred in either series of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The ICL was safer and more effective than LASIK and appears to be a viable alternative to corneal refractive excimer surgery in the treatment of moderate to high myopia.