AUTHOR=Fu Mengjun , Li Meiyan , Xian Yiyong , Yu Zhiqiang , Zhang Haorun , Choi Joanne , Niu Lingling , Wang Xiaoying , Zhou Xingtao 

TITLE=Two-Year Visual Outcomes of Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens and Small Incision Lenticule Extraction for the Correction of Low Myopia

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Medicine

VOLUME=9

YEAR=2022

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.780000

DOI=10.3389/fmed.2022.780000

ISSN=2296-858X

ABSTRACT=<sec><title>Purpose</title><p>To investigate the 2-year visual quality of Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO-ICL) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for the correction of low myopia.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>In this prospective study, we included 25 eyes of 25 patients (7 men) who underwent EVO-ICL and 36 eyes of 36 patients (16 men) who underwent SMILE between January 2018 and December 2018. Subjective and objective visual outcomes were compared between ICL and SMILE. All patients were followed for 2 years.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>At the postoperative 2-year visit, the percentage of patients with uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) greater than or equal to preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was comparable in the ICL group (80%, 20/25) and SMILE group (88.89%, 32/36). Spherical equivalent (SE) was within ± 0.50 D in 96% (24/25) of the ICL group and 94.44% (34/36) of the SMILE group. No eyes lost more than 2 lines of CDVA. Postoperative high-order aberrations (HOAs) were significantly increased in the ICL group (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01) and in the SMILE group (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01). The most common visual complaint was halo after ICL and starburst after SMILE. There was no correlation between HOAs and visual complaints (<italic>p</italic> &gt; 0.05).</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens provides comparable safety, efficacy, long-term visual stability, and high patient satisfaction when compared to SMILE in correcting low myopia. EVO-ICL could be a favorable alternative for low myopia.</p></sec><sec><title>Key messages What was known?</title><list list-type="simple" prefix-word="simple"><list-item><label>•</label><p>Visual outcomes of Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO-ICL) versus small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for correction of mild myopia remain unclear.</p></list-item></list></sec><sec><title>What this paper adds?</title><list list-type="simple" prefix-word="simple"><list-item><label>•</label><p>Evolution Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO-ICL) provides comparable safety, efficacy, long-term visual stability, and high patient satisfaction when compared to small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in correcting low myopia.</p></list-item><list-item><label>•</label><p>The most common visual complaint was halo after ICL and starburst after SMILE.</p></list-item></list></sec>