Search

Ahmed Ali Amer,1,* Esam Ahmed Ghanem Abu El Wafa Ali,2,* Esam Sayed Ahmed,2,* Mohamed Ateto Hamed,3,* Wael el Shazly Eata,1,* Ibrahim Amer2,* 1Ophthalmology Department, Qena Faculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt; 2Ophthalmology Department, Al Azhar University, Assuit, Egypt; 3Ophthalmology Department, Luxor University, Luxor, Egypt*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Ahmed Ali Amer, Tel +20 101 182 7000, Email AhmedALi.ophth@gmail.comPurpose:  This study aimed to compare the short-term outcome of implanting the Visian implantable collamer lens V4 ICL versus the Visian V4c ICL in patients with moderate and high myopia.Patients and Methods:  This is a retrospective that was conducted on patients with moderate or high myopia who were scheduled for ICL implantation at our institution, Patients who underwent V4 ICL implantation with peripheral iridectomy were assigned to group A, and those who underwent V4c ICL implantation without peripheral iridectomy were assigned to group B. In group A, a preoperative peripheral iridectomy was performed. In group B, the patients received cycloplegic and dilating agents. The patients underwent a complete ocular examination preoperatively and during the follow-up visits that were conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.Results: This study included 214 eyes from 107 patients; group A included 110 eyes, and group B included 104 eyes. Postoperatively, the UCVA and BCVA showed statistically significant improvement across the follow-up time points (p< 0.001), with no significant difference between the two groups. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean achieved correction or the residual refraction. Both groups showed a strong correlation between the target and the achieved correction, with R2 = 0.99 in the two groups. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the IOP across all time measures. Howe