These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative study of 2 types of implantable collamer lenses, 1 with and 1 without a central artificial hole.
    Author: Huseynova T, Ozaki S, Ishizuka T, Mita M, Tomita M.
    Journal: Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jun; 157(6):1136-43. PubMed ID: 24503407.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes between implantable collamer lenses (ICLs), 1 with and 1 without a central artificial hole. DESIGN: Comparative study. METHODS: We included 65 eyes of 65 patients with refractive error in our study. The mean manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) was -9.32 ± 4.02 diopters (range, 6.75 to -16.50 diopters). We divided patients into 2 groups based on the type of ICL used, 1 for those without a central artificial hole (Group I, 21 eyes) and 1 for those with a hole (Group II, 44 eyes). The postoperative changes in visual acuity, endothelial cell density, MRSE, higher order aberrations readings, and objective scatter index between the 2 kinds of ICLs were compared. The follow-up period was 3 months. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the postoperative changes in uncorrected distance visual acuity (P = 0.81), corrected distance visual acuity (P = 0.24), MRSE (P = 0.18), and endothelial cell density (P = 0.76) between the groups. Also, no difference in objective scatter index was found at 3 months (P = 0.32). None of the higher order aberrations readings showed any significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences between the outcomes of these ICLs, either with or without a central artificial hole.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]