PURPOSE: To evaluate the eye's optical quality after phakic intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and LASIK for moderate to high myopia. METHODS: The retinal image quality of 45 patients was evaluated after undergoing one of three surgical procedures (9 patients with Verisyse IOL [AMO] implants, 11 patients with Veriflex IOL [AMO] implants, and 25 patients who underwent LASIK). Patients were aged <40 years, had at least 5.00 diopters of myopia, and had preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity better than 20/30. The eye's optical quality was measured using the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS, Visiometrics S.L.), which is an instrument based on the double-pass technique. Measurements were performed before surgery and 1 day and 1 month after surgery. RESULTS: Optical quality worsened noticeably 1 day after surgery with the Verisyse IOL with a 50% to 60% loss, most likely due to the large incision and the presence of sutures in most eyes. The LASIK technique and Veriflex IOL implant did not cause as remarkable a decrease in optical quality (20% to 25% loss). One month after surgery, the optical quality of patients with IOL implants was high, although some surgically induced astigmatism remained, especially in the Verisyse patients. Conversely, LASIK patients had slightly lower optical quality, with optical parameters that represented 90% of their initial value. CONCLUSIONS: Verisyse and Veriflex phakic IOL implantation and LASIK are both safe and effective in correcting moderate to high myopia, but they involve different processes of optical quality recovery. One day after surgery, the Verisyse IOL implantation significantly reduced the eye's optical quality, mainly due to the larger incision required and the higher number of sutures used. This reduction was not as remarkable with the other two techniques. However, 1 month after surgery, patients with IOL implants recovered more optical quality than LASIK patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the eye's optical quality after phakic intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and LASIK for moderate to high myopia. METHODS: The retinal image quality of 45 patients was evaluated after undergoing one of three surgical procedures (9 patients with Verisyse IOL [AMO] implants, 11 patients with Veriflex IOL [AMO] implants, and 25 patients who underwent LASIK). Patients were aged <40 years, had at least 5.00 diopters of myopia, and had preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity better than 20/30. The eye's optical quality was measured using the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS, Visiometrics S.L.), which is an instrument based on the double-pass technique. Measurements were performed before surgery and 1 day and 1 month after surgery. RESULTS: Optical quality worsened noticeably 1 day after surgery with the Verisyse IOL with a 50% to 60% loss, most likely due to the large incision and the presence of sutures in most eyes. The LASIK technique and Veriflex IOL implant did not cause as remarkable a decrease in optical quality (20% to 25% loss). One month after surgery, the optical quality of patients with IOL implants was high, although some surgically induced astigmatism remained, especially in the Verisyse patients. Conversely, LASIK patients had slightly lower optical quality, with optical parameters that represented 90% of their initial value. CONCLUSIONS: Verisyse and Veriflex phakic IOL implantation and LASIK are both safe and effective in correcting moderate to high myopia, but they involve different processes of optical quality recovery. One day after surgery, the Verisyse IOL implantation significantly reduced the eye's optical quality, mainly due to the larger incision required and the higher number of sutures used. This reduction was not as remarkable with the other two techniques. However, 1 month after surgery, patients with IOL implants recovered more optical quality than LASIK patients.