AIM: To compare Visian lens (model V4c) and Artiflex lens regarding quality (contrast sensitivity) and quantity (efficacy, predictability, safety and stability) of vision in correcting high myopia with recording and analysis of complications. METHODS: The comparative prospective study included 39 eyes of 23 patients with high myopia, 19 eyes had Visian lens implantation (model V4c) and 20 eyes had Artiflex lens implantation. The inclusion criteria were high myopia (higher than 6.0 D) and stable refraction (<0.5 D change over one year). Outcomes included assessment of safety and efficacy indices, predictability, stability, contrast sensitivity and analysis of complications at postoperative 1d, 1wk and 1, 3, 6 and 12mo. Selection of the type of phakic intraocular lens for patients was based on surgeons' preferences, which was no specific selection criteria. RESULTS: After 12mo of follow up, difference in uncorrected and corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA) between both groups was statistically insignificant (UDVA for VisianV4c and Artiflex lens were 0.33±0.2 logMAR and 0.37±0.2 logMAR respectively, P=0.59, CDVA for VisianV4c and Artiflex lens were 0.155±0.1 logMAR and 0.147± 0.1 logMAR respectively, P=0.87). The efficacy index was 1.25 for VisianV4c lens and 0.8 for Artiflex lens, 78.9% of eyes were within one diopter spherical equivalent in Visian V4c lens group compared to 70% in the Artiflex lens group. No eye lost lines of CVDA proving a good safety index for both lenses (safety index was 1.67 for VisianV4c lens and 1.34 for Artiflex lens). Difference in contrast sensitivity between both groups was statistically insignificant (P=0.15, 0.88, 0.27, 0.32 and 0.82 at five spatial frequencies). CONCLUSION: Both Visian ICL V4c and Artiflex lenses are safe and effective with stable and predictable refraction and they have comparable contrast sensitivity outcomes with no vision threatening complications.
AIM: To compare Visian lens (model V4c) and Artiflex lens regarding quality (contrast sensitivity) and quantity (efficacy, predictability, safety and stability) of vision in correcting high myopia with recording and analysis of complications. METHODS: The comparative prospective study included 39 eyes of 23 patients with high myopia, 19 eyes had Visian lens implantation (model V4c) and 20 eyes had Artiflex lens implantation. The inclusion criteria were high myopia (higher than 6.0 D) and stable refraction (<0.5 D change over one year). Outcomes included assessment of safety and efficacy indices, predictability, stability, contrast sensitivity and analysis of complications at postoperative 1d, 1wk and 1, 3, 6 and 12mo. Selection of the type of phakic intraocular lens for patients was based on surgeons' preferences, which was no specific selection criteria. RESULTS: After 12mo of follow up, difference in uncorrected and corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA) between both groups was statistically insignificant (UDVA for VisianV4c and Artiflex lens were 0.33±0.2 logMAR and 0.37±0.2 logMAR respectively, P=0.59, CDVA for VisianV4c and Artiflex lens were 0.155±0.1 logMAR and 0.147± 0.1 logMAR respectively, P=0.87). The efficacy index was 1.25 for VisianV4c lens and 0.8 for Artiflex lens, 78.9% of eyes were within one diopter spherical equivalent in Visian V4c lens group compared to 70% in the Artiflex lens group. No eye lost lines of CVDA proving a good safety index for both lenses (safety index was 1.67 for VisianV4c lens and 1.34 for Artiflex lens). Difference in contrast sensitivity between both groups was statistically insignificant (P=0.15, 0.88, 0.27, 0.32 and 0.82 at five spatial frequencies). CONCLUSION: Both Visian ICL V4c and Artiflex lenses are safe and effective with stable and predictable refraction and they have comparable contrast sensitivity outcomes with no vision threatening complications.
Authors: Pedro Manuel Baptista; Sílvia Monteiro; Ana Carolina Abreu; João Poças; Diana José; Miguel Lume; Maria do Céu Pinto Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2020-12-30