ABSTRACT
AIM:To compare refractive and safety outcome of Artisan and Artiflex phakic intraocular lens(PIOL)for the correction of high myopia in Asian population.METHODS:Historical cohort study. A total of 81 high myopic eyes that underwent PIOL implantation from 2016 to 2020 at Yap Eye Hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on PIOL implanted, with 43 eyes using Artisan PIOL in Artisan group and 38 eyes using Artiflex PIOL in Artiflex group. Visual acuity, corneal biomicroscopy parameters, and intraocular pressure(IOP)were respectively recorded prior to the implantation and at 1d, 1 and 3mo after surgery. In addition, anterior chamber depth was documented before PIOL implantation.RESULTS:Mean follow-up period were 9.64±6.93mo and 8.96±4.28mo in Artisan an Artiflex group, respectively(P=0.736). The efficacy index was 1.03±0.47 in Artisan group, and 1.02±0.17 in the Artiflex group(P=0.119).The safety index was 1.10±0.45 and 1.05±0.21 in Artisan and Artiflex group, respectively(P<0.001). The mean spherical equivalent(SE)in Artisan group was -0.64±0.996D, and it was -0.22±0.58D in Artiflex group(P=0.076). In both groups, there was a significant loss of endothelial cell density(ECD)postoperatively compare to baseline(P<0.05), and the cumulative ECD loss was 7.44% and 5.79% in the Artisan and Artiflex groups, respectively(P=0.418).CONCLUSION:Artisan and Artiflex are comparable in terms of refractive outcome to correct high myopia in Asian eyes. Artisan had a slightly better safety index compare to Artiflex. However, the efficacy index and cumulative ECD loss was similar in both the Artisan and Artiflex groups.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of anterior chamber and retropupillary implantation of iris‑claw Artisan intraocular lenses (IOL). Design: Prospective, randomized, single‑blinded study. Patients and Methods: Forty eyes of forty aphakic patients were enrolled. Patients were randomized into two groups. Each group includes twenty patients. Group 1 received anterior chamber Artisan IOL implantation. Group 2 received retropupillary Artisan IOL implantation. Preoperative and postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and all complications were noted and compared at 6 months follow‑up. Results: Each two groups obtained a significant improvement in CDVA (P < 0.05). Four patients in Group 1 and five patients in Group 2 had significant but nonpermanent increase at IOP values. There were one and two pupillary irregularity in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. In one patient, a shallow and inferior located retinal detachment were encountered in anterior chamber group. Conclusions: The results were not significantly different between the two fixation techniques for iris‑claw lens. The surgery procedure is dependent to surgeon experience and eye’s conditions.