Changes in Accommodative and Binocular Function following Phakic Intraocular Lens for High and Low-to-Moderate Myopia.

The aim was to evaluate accommodative and binocular function of phakic intraocular lens implantable collamer lens (ICL) in high and low-to-moderate myopia. Prospective comparative cohort study with 38 myopic patients who underwent ICL implantation were divided into two groups of 19 patients, each one based on the spherical equivalent (SE): high-power (SE ≤ −6 D) and low-to-moderate (SE > −6 D). The push-up amplitude of accommodation (AA), monocular accommodative facility (MAF), distance and near ocular deviation, near convergence amplitude, near point convergence (NPC), stereopsis, and accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio were assessed before surgery and 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. The mean residual refractive error at 1 month after surgery improved in both groups, 0.18 ± 0.34 D and 0.09 ± 0.26 D, respectively (p < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in AA in both groups between preoperatively and at 1-week (p = 0.001; p = 0.008, respectively) and 1-month follow-up (p = 0.001; p = 0.008). For the rest of the binocular measurements, no statistically significant postoperative changes were found in any group. This finding suggests follow-up studies on amplitude of accommodation in phakic intraocular lens ICL implantation.

Influence of Preoperative Astigmatism Type and Magnitude on the Effectiveness of SMILE Correction.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) as a function of the astigmatism level and type. METHODS: A total of 102 right eyes were included in this study. Refractive astigmatism and corneal astigmatism measured with Scheimpflug technology were retrieved from the preoperative visit and the 3-month follow-up visit. Patients were split into three groups according to the preoperative refractive astigmatism (0.50, 0.75 to 1.25, and 1.50 diopters [D] or greater) and the effectiveness among each group was evaluated according to the with-the-rule (WTR), against-the-rule (ATR), and oblique classifications. The standard Alpins method was used for the analysis. RESULTS: Resultant astigmatism was not associated with its preoperative classification when the total sample was considered, but a significant association emerged between the presence of resultant astigmatism and its preoperative classification in the 1.50 D or greater group. The magnitude of error was significantly lower in the WTR (median: -0.30 D) than in the oblique and ATR astigmatism groups, resulting in a coefficient of adjustment of 1.13 for WTR astigmatism of 1.50 D or greater but not for the other types. CONCLUSIONS: Astigmatism correction with SMILE is predictable for astigmatism lower than 1.50 D without the need to apply a correction. However, higher undercorrection is present in WTR astigmatism of 1.50 D or greater. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(1):40-47.].