title: Implantable collamer lens versus iris-fixed phakic intraocular lens implantation to correct myopia: a meta-analysis.
abstract: This study is a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy, predictability, and safety of correcting myopia via implantation of two types of phakic intraocular lens (PIOLs): the implantable collamer lens (ICL) and iris-fixed PIOL. The Cochrane library, Pubmed, and EMBASE were searched. Study selection, data exclusion, and quality assessment were performed by two independent observers. The pooled relative risk (RR), pooled standardized mean difference (SMD), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare lenses. Seven studies, involving 511 eyes, were included. The pooled SMD in postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs was -0.22 (95% CI, -0.58 to 0.13; P = .22). The pooled RR values of UDVA of 20/20 or better and of 20/40 or better comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs were 1.15 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.47; P = .29) and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.08; P = .75), respectively. The pooled RR of loss of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and gain in BSCVA comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs were 1.20 (95% CI, 0.24 to 6.00; P = .82) and 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.48; P = .31), respectively. The pooled RR comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.29 to 2.12; P = .63) for all reported complications and 2.80 (95% CI, 1.04 to 7.52; P = .04) for severe complications. The pooled RR of achieving a result within ± 0.5 D (diopter) of the intended target comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.77; P = .03). Overall, there is no significant difference in efficacy between the two types of PIOLs or in safety, except that the ICL is associated with a greater incidence of severe complications, especially anterior subcapsular cataract, primarily in the Version 2 and Version 3 groups. However, ICL has better predictability.
authors.affiliation: Eye Center, the 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, College of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
authors.forename: Guan-Lu
authors.initials: GL
authors.lastname: Liang
authors.affiliation: Eye Center, the 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, College of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
authors.forename: Jing
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, the 1st Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, College of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
authors.forename: Jun-Ting
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Shi
authors.affiliation: Eye Center, the 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, College of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
authors.forename: Jian
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.affiliation: Eye Center, the 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, College of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
authors.forename: Feng-Ying
authors.initials: FY
authors.lastname: He
authors.affiliation: Eye Center, the 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, College of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
authors.forename: Wen
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Xu
mesh_terms: D057186:Comparative Effectiveness Research; D006801:Humans; D019654:Lens Implantation, Intraocular / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods; D009216:Myopia / Q000601:surgery*; D054120:Phakic Intraocular Lenses / Q000009:adverse effects; D011379:Prognosis; D016896:Treatment Outcome