ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022
Vault differences in eyes implanted with spherical and toric implantable collamer lenses: an inter-eye analysis.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toric versus Standard Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation for Low Myopic Astigmatism: A 12-Month Retrospective Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Repeatability and Agreement of Central Vault for Implantable Collamer Lens Obtained by the Tomey OA-2000 Biometer and Spectralis OCT.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Astigmatism Vector Analysis of High Toricity Visian ICL.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the influence of implantable collamer lenses (ICL) geometry, i.e. spherical and toric on the vault, and report the refractive and visual outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the two ICL geometries.
methodsThis retrospective case series analysed 41 patients implanted with a spherical ICL (sICL) in one eye and an equal sized toric ICL (tICL) in the fellow eye. The anatomical and ICL-related parameters were assessed using anterior-segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT Visante, Zeiss Meditec AG) and optical tomography (Pentacam, OCULUS). The influence of the anatomical and ICL-related parameters on the vault was determined using generalised estimating equations (GEE) to incorporate inter-eye correlations.
resultsPostoperative spherical equivalent was within ± 0.50D in 66% and 83% of the eyes, respectively implanted with sICL and tICL. The efficacy index in the sICL group was 1.06 and 1.14 in the tICL group. The mean inter-eye vault difference was -1.46 µm, anatomical and ICL-related parameters showed similar associations with the vault for sICL and tICL. The GEE identified the ICL size minus the anterior chamber width, the ICL spherical power and ICL central thickness as significant factors influencing the vault.
conclusionsSpherical and toric ICL showed good efficacy for the correction of myopia and astigmatism. Patients implanted bilaterally with sICL and tICL tend to present similar vaults. The vault produced by both types of ICL was mainly regulated by the oversizing of the ICL. This suggests that the ICL geometry (spherical vs toric) is a factor with limited influence on the vault, thus the sizing method of a sICL and tICL should be similar.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.