Hun Lee1, David Sung Yong Kang2, Byoung Jin Ha2, Moonjung Choi3, Eung Kweon Kim4, Kyoung Yul Seo3, Tae-Im Kim5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, International St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Incheon, South Korea; The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Eyereum Eye Clinic, Seoul, South Korea. 3. The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 4. The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; Corneal Dystrophy Research Institute, Severance Biomedical Science Institute, and Brain Korea 21 Plus Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 5. The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: tikim@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate and compare vaulting and movement changes during accommodation in eyes with the V4c and V4 implantable collamer lenses (ICL). DESIGN: Comparative, observational case series. METHODS: The medical records of 35 eyes (18 patients) with the V4 ICL and 51 eyes (26 patients) with the V4c ICL were retrospectively examined and included in analyses. Anterior chamber depth (ACD), posterior corneal surface-to-ICL distance (endo-ICL distance), pupil size, and postoperative vaulting were evaluated using the Visante anterior chamber optical coherence tomography system. Images were taken during the nonaccommodative and accommodative states 3 months after ICL implantation. Refractive error, keratometry values, axial length, intraocular pressure, and central corneal thickness were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: ICL vaulting did not significantly change during accommodation in eyes with either the V4 or V4c ICL (P = .532 for V4 ICL and P = .415 for V4c ICL). However, significant reductions in ACD, endo-ICL distance, and pupil size were observed during accommodation in both groups. In eyes with a V4 ICL, the change in [Δ] ACD was 0.2 ± 0.1 mm (P < .001), Δendo-ICL distance was 0.2 ± 0.1 mm (P < .001), and Δpupil size was 0.5 ± 0.9 mm (P = .021). For eyes with the V4c ICL, ΔACD was 0.2 ± 0.2 mm (P < .001), Δendo-ICL distance was 0.2 ± 0.2 mm (P < .001), and Δpupil size was 0.8 ± 1.2 mm (P < .001). The mean reductions of each parameter were not statistically different between eyes with the V4 ICL and the V4c ICL. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the light stimulation response, accommodation does not significantly affect ICL vaulting differently in eyes with either the V4 or V4C ICLs.
PURPOSE: To investigate and compare vaulting and movement changes during accommodation in eyes with the V4c and V4 implantable collamer lenses (ICL). DESIGN: Comparative, observational case series. METHODS: The medical records of 35 eyes (18 patients) with the V4 ICL and 51 eyes (26 patients) with the V4c ICL were retrospectively examined and included in analyses. Anterior chamber depth (ACD), posterior corneal surface-to-ICL distance (endo-ICL distance), pupil size, and postoperative vaulting were evaluated using the Visante anterior chamber optical coherence tomography system. Images were taken during the nonaccommodative and accommodative states 3 months after ICL implantation. Refractive error, keratometry values, axial length, intraocular pressure, and central corneal thickness were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: ICL vaulting did not significantly change during accommodation in eyes with either the V4 or V4c ICL (P = .532 for V4 ICL and P = .415 for V4c ICL). However, significant reductions in ACD, endo-ICL distance, and pupil size were observed during accommodation in both groups. In eyes with a V4 ICL, the change in [Δ] ACD was 0.2 ± 0.1 mm (P < .001), Δendo-ICL distance was 0.2 ± 0.1 mm (P < .001), and Δpupil size was 0.5 ± 0.9 mm (P = .021). For eyes with the V4c ICL, ΔACD was 0.2 ± 0.2 mm (P < .001), Δendo-ICL distance was 0.2 ± 0.2 mm (P < .001), and Δpupil size was 0.8 ± 1.2 mm (P < .001). The mean reductions of each parameter were not statistically different between eyes with the V4 ICL and the V4c ICL. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the light stimulation response, accommodation does not significantly affect ICL vaulting differently in eyes with either the V4 or V4C ICLs.
Authors: José J Esteve-Taboada; Alberto Domínguez-Vicent; Daniel Monsálvez-Romín; Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Robert Montés-Micó Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Santiago Cerpa Manito; Angel Sánchez Trancón; Oscar Torrado Sierra; António M G Baptista; Pedro Miguel Serra Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2020-10-29
Authors: Hun Lee; David Sung Yong Kang; Jin Young Choi; Byoung Jin Ha; Eung Kweon Kim; Kyoung Yul Seo; Tae-Im Kim Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Beatriz Gargallo-Martinez; Jose Javier Garcia-Medina; Elena Rubio-Velazquez; Paulo Fernandes; César Villa-Collar; José M Gonzalez-Meijome; Ramón Gutierrez-Ortega Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 4.379