Efficacy Comparison Between Toric Posterior Chamber Phakic IOL and Posterior Chamber Phakic IOL Plus Modified Steep Meridian Corneal Relaxing Incision for Moderate to High Astigmatism Corrections.

PURPOSE: To compare posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens (Implantable Collamer Lens [STAAR Surgical]) (ICL) plus modified steep meridian corneal relaxing incision (MS-CRI) to toric posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens (Toric Implantable Collamer Lens [STAAR Surgical]) (TICL) implantation for the correction of moderate to high astigmatism. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, patients with myopia who had moderate to high astigmatism (200 eyes) were enrolled and divided into TICL (n = 100) and MSCRI (n = 100) groups. All patients underwent examinations for uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and subjective refraction before surgery and at the 1- and 6-month follow-up visits. Vector astigmatism analysis was evaluated using the Alpins method. RESULTS: The mean UDVA and CDVA demonstrated significant improvement after surgery in both groups. During the 6-month follow-up, the MS-CRI group showed a slight regression tendency (P < .001) and the TICL group was stable for the astigmatism correction (P = .510). At 6 months postoperatively, the mean magnitudes of the surgically induced astigmatism were 1.46 ± 0.53 and 1.10 ± 0.48 diopters (P < .001). The correction index of the TICL group was closer to 1 compared to that of the MS-CRI group (0.95 vs 0.76). Approximately 99% of eyes in the TICL group had angle of error within ±15°, whereas 89% eyes in the MS-CRI group were within that range. A significant relationship between the magnitudes of target induced astigmatism and correction index was noted in the MS-CRI group (P < .001), but not in the TICL group (P = .592). CONCLUSIONS: TICL implantation could achieve better visual outcomes for correcting moderate to high astigmatism compared to ICL implantation plus MS-CRI. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(8):539-545.].

[Chronic angle-closure glaucoma in a pseudophakic eye with Soemmering's ring and plateau iris: case report]. / Glaucome chronique par fermeture de l'angle chez le pseudophake avec anneau de Soemmering et antéroposition du corps ciliaire : à propos d'un cas.

We present a case of a pseudophakic woman with chronic angle-closure glaucoma. She had undergone uncomplicated bilateral phacoemulsification in 1994 with 21-diopter implants in the capsular bag. Fourteen years later, the right eye developed progressive angle closure with ocular hypertension, disc cupping and visual field defect. We observed a shallow anterior chamber, myopic shift, and closed angle, not openable on indentation gonioscopy. UBM revealed anteroposition of the ciliary body and a Soemmering's ring, with both appearing to contribute to the angle closure. After two incomplete iridotomies and one complete but blocked by the Soemmering's ring, a final UBM-guided iridotomy afforded a partial reopening of the angle, and satisfactory IOP control. The appearance and development of a Soemmering's ring after phacoemulsification are not always appreciated. It is common but usually asymptomatic. However, in some cases, when it is thick and/or located anteriorly, in the case of an anteroposition of the ciliary body (as in our case), it seems to cause direct pressure on the iris and pupillary block. Angle-closure glaucoma in pseudophakic eyes remains uncommon, the use of UBM is recommended, the role of a Soemmering's ring should be investigated, iridotomies must often be repeated, and long-term monitoring of pseudophakic patients remains necessary.

Optical quality one month after verisyse and Veriflex phakic IOL implantation and Zeiss MEL 80 LASIK for myopia from 5.00 to 16.50 diopters.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the eye's optical quality after phakic intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and LASIK for moderate to high myopia. METHODS: The retinal image quality of 45 patients was evaluated after undergoing one of three surgical procedures (9 patients with Verisyse IOL [AMO] implants, 11 patients with Veriflex IOL [AMO] implants, and 25 patients who underwent LASIK). Patients were aged <40 years, had at least 5.00 diopters of myopia, and had preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity better than 20/30. The eye's optical quality was measured using the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS, Visiometrics S.L.), which is an instrument based on the double-pass technique. Measurements were performed before surgery and 1 day and 1 month after surgery. RESULTS: Optical quality worsened noticeably 1 day after surgery with the Verisyse IOL with a 50% to 60% loss, most likely due to the large incision and the presence of sutures in most eyes. The LASIK technique and Veriflex IOL implant did not cause as remarkable a decrease in optical quality (20% to 25% loss). One month after surgery, the optical quality of patients with IOL implants was high, although some surgically induced astigmatism remained, especially in the Verisyse patients. Conversely, LASIK patients had slightly lower optical quality, with optical parameters that represented 90% of their initial value. CONCLUSIONS: Verisyse and Veriflex phakic IOL implantation and LASIK are both safe and effective in correcting moderate to high myopia, but they involve different processes of optical quality recovery. One day after surgery, the Verisyse IOL implantation significantly reduced the eye's optical quality, mainly due to the larger incision required and the higher number of sutures used. This reduction was not as remarkable with the other two techniques. However, 1 month after surgery, patients with IOL implants recovered more optical quality than LASIK patients.