Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Jun;23(6):537-53.
doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-20070601-02.

Matched population comparison of the Visian Implantable Collamer Lens and standard LASIK for myopia of -3.00 to -7.88 diopters

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Matched population comparison of the Visian Implantable Collamer Lens and standard LASIK for myopia of -3.00 to -7.88 diopters

Donald R Sanders. J Refract Surg. 2007 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare matched populations of LASIK and Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) cases in the correction of myopia between -3.00 and -7.88 diopters (D).

Methods: One hundred sixty-four LASIK eyes with prospective data collected from a single center and 164 ICL eyes from the multicenter US ICL Clinical Trial were compared in this observational non-randomized study. The LASIK and ICL groups were well matched for age, gender, and mean level of preoperative spherical equivalent refraction.

Results: At 6 months, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) > or = 20/20 was 85% with LASIK and 95% with ICL (P = .003) compared to preoperative values of 93% and 88%, respectively (P = .292). Loss of > or = 2 lines of BSCVA was significantly lower with the ICL at 1 week (0.6% vs 10%, P < .001) and 1 month (7% vs 0%, P = .001) with comparable outcomes at 6 months (0% vs 1%). At 6 months postoperatively, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) > or = 20/15 (11% vs 25%, P = .001) and > or = 20/20 (49% vs 63%, P = .001) was better in the ICL cases. Predictability within 0.50 D at 6 months for ICL cases was 85% (67% LASIK, P < .001); 97% of ICL cases were within 1.00 D (88% LASIK, P = .002). Refractive stability (+/- 0.50 D) between 1 and 6 months was 93% with ICL compared to only 82% with LASIK (P = .006).

Conclusions: The ICL performed better than LASIK in almost all measures of safety, efficacy, predictability, and stability in this matched population comparison, supporting the ICL as an effective alternative to existing refractive laser surgical treatments for the range of myopia studied.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources