Comparison of the Visian ICL and Verisyse phakic intraocular lenses for myopia from 6.00 to 20.00 diopters.

PURPOSE: To compare visual and refractive outcomes between the Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) and Verisyse phakic intraocular lens. METHODS: Comparative interventional case series for myopia between 6.00 and 20.00 diopters (D). Thirty consecutive eyes of 16 patients had a Visian ICL implanted and 31 consecutive eyes of 19 patients had the Verisyse lens implanted. Outcomes measured at 3 months postoperatively included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and refractive predictability as well as adverse events. Preoperatively, the groups were no different in regard to age (P=.72) and spherical equivalent refraction (P=.38). RESULTS: Postoperative UCVA of 20/20 or better and 20/25 or better in the Visian ICL group was 67% and 96%, respectively, compared to 63% and 79%, respectively, in the Verisyse lens group (P=.10). Binocular UCVA of 20/20 or better and 20/25 or better in the Visian ICL group was 92% and 100%, respectively, and in the Verisyse group, 70% and 80%, respectively (P=.007). One and two lines gain of postoperative BSCVA in the Visian ICL group was 40% and 10%, respectively, which was statistically significantly better than the Verisyse group of 16% and 6%, respectively (P=.025). Postoperative deviation from target refraction was 0.038+/-0.39 D in the Visian ICL group and -0.38+/-0.89 D in the Verisyse lens group (P=.018). CONCLUSIONS: Monocular UCVA was similar for both groups, whereas binocular UCVA was better in the Visian ICL group. The Visian ICL group had more accurate refractive outcomes than the Verisyse lens group.

Effect of nepafenac sodium 0.1% on delayed corneal epithelial healing and haze after photorefractive keratectomy: retrospective comparative study.

PURPOSE: To assess delayed epithelialization and corneal haze related to nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.1% (Nevanac) use after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). SETTING: Private practice, Beverly Hills, California, USA. METHODS: This retrospective comparative chart review comprised 69 eyes (44 patients) that were divided into 2 treatment groups that were not statistically significantly different in age or preoperative spherical equivalent. The nepafenac group consisted of 34 eyes (22 patients) that received nepafenac 0.1%, moxifloxacin, and fluorometholone postoperatively. The non-nepafenac group included 35 eyes (22 patients) that received moxifloxacin and fluorometholone only. Patients were seen between 1 day and 5 days postoperatively for evaluation of epithelial healing and haze formation. Delayed epithelialization was defined as healing after day 5. All patients were followed for haze formation for a minimum of 3 months. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed no difference between the nepafenac and non-nepafenac groups in delayed epithelialization (P = .61, chi-square test). Neither group had significant corneal haze. CONCLUSION: Nepafenac did not appear to delay corneal epithelial healing or contribute to haze formation after PRK.