ArticleScientific reports2024
One-stage versus two-stage bilateral implantable collamer lens implantation: a comparison of efficacy and safety.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable collamer lens implantation (ICL) represents a safe and effective treatment for myopia and myopic astigmatism. To compare the outcomes of a bilateral one-stage same day approach to a two-stage approach, the databases of the University Eye Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilians-University and Smile Eyes Linz, Austria were screened for eyes that had undergone ICL implantation. Two-stage surgery was performed at an interval of 1 day (17 patients), 2 days (19 patients) and 1 week (2 patients). Variables analyzed were preoperative, 1-day and last follow-up uncorrected distance (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, refractive spherical equivalent (SEQ), astigmatism, age, endothelial cell count (ECD), intraocular pressure (IOP) and ICL vaulting. In total, 178 eyes (100 eyes one-stage, 78 eyes two-stage) of 89 patients were included in this study. Mean follow-up was 1.1 ± 0.8 and 1.3 ± 0.5 years. Mean preoperative SEQ was - 7.9 ± 2.6 diopters (D) in the one-stage and - 8.0 ± 1.7 D in the two-stage group (p = 0.63) and improved to 0.00 ± 0.40 and - 0.20 ± 0.40 D at end of follow-up, showing slightly better stability in the one-stage group (p = 0.004). There was no difference in the efficacy (1.1 vs. 1.2, p = 0.06) and the safety index (1.2 vs. 1.2, p = 0.60) between the two groups. No eye (0%) in either group lost 2 lines or more of UDVA (p > 0.99). Refraction within ± 0.50 D and ± 1.00 D around target was achieved comparably often (89 vs. 86%, p = 0.65; 99 vs. 99%, p > 0.99). Endothelial cell loss was slightly higher in the two-stage group (1.3 vs. 4.3%). Vaulting at the final follow up was higher in the one-stage group (373.8 ± 205.4 µm vs. 260.3 ± 153.5 µm, p = 0.00007). There were no serious intraoperative complications in either group. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that both the one- and two-stage approaches are equally effective, predictable and safe. Regarding endothelial cell loss, vaulting and SEQ stability, the one-stage group showed slightly better outcomes, but these results are clinically questionable because they are so small. Larger studies are needed to quantitatively evaluate a potential benefit.
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.