|Year : 2011 | Volume
| Issue : 3 | Page : 116-119
Artiflex versus STAAR® implantable contact lenses for correction of high myopia
Mohammad Ghoreishi, Amin Masjedi, Kobra Nasrollahi, Aminhossein Rahgozar, Keivan Jenab, Hamid Fesharaki
Department of Ophthalmology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Persian Eye Clinic, Isfahan, Iran
|Date of Web Publication||29-Dec-2011|
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Persian Eye Clinic, No.208, Mir Street, Isfahan
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
Purpose : To compare two phakic intraocular lenses, Artiflex and STAAR® implantable contact lens (ICL), in high myopia.
Setting : Isfahan Ophthalmology Clinic, Iran.
Materials and Methods : In a randomized, prospective clinical trial study, 40 eyes of 20 patients who came to Isfahan ophthalmology clinic to correct their refractive error were examined. Artiflex was inserted in 20 eyes and ICL in the other 20 eyes. After 1 year, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, intraocular pressure (IOP), and specular microscopy of corneal endothelium were assessed in both the groups.
Results : In this study, there was no statistical difference between UCVA, BCVA, IOP, cataract incidence, contrast sensitivity, and specular microscopy, 1 year after surgery. 40% of eyes in the Artiflex group developed anterior chamber cell and flare reaction 1 year postoperatively, but no patient in the ICL group developed the same. So, there is obvious difference in the rate of anterior chamber cell and flare reaction between these two groups.
Conclusion : These two lenses have similar outcomes except in the incidence rate of anterior chamber cell and flare reaction that is greater in the Artiflex group. So, these two lenses are safe with predictable outcome in treating high myopia.
Keywords: Contrast sensitivity, intraocular pressure, myopia, phakic intraocular lens, specular microscopy, visual acuity
|How to cite this article:|
Ghoreishi M, Masjedi A, Nasrollahi K, Rahgozar A, Jenab K, Fesharaki H. Artiflex versus STAAR® implantable contact lenses for correction of high myopia. Oman J Ophthalmol 2011;4:116-9
|How to cite this URL:|
Ghoreishi M, Masjedi A, Nasrollahi K, Rahgozar A, Jenab K, Fesharaki H. Artiflex versus STAAR® implantable contact lenses for correction of high myopia. Oman J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2011 [cited 2022 May 16];4:116-9. Available from: https://www.ojoonline.org/text.asp?2011/4/3/116/91266
| Introduction|| |
Refractive errors are one of the most common ophthalmologic problems. For resolving this, there are several therapeutic methods such as corrective spectacles, contact lenses, keratorefractive surgeries, intraocular lenses (IOLs), and clear lens extraction. There are many complications after keratorefractive surgeries of high refractive errors, such as glare, halo, and contrast sensitivity loss due to higher order aberration induced by keratorefractive surgery. The over flattening of the central cornea can cause higher order aberration. ,,
IOLs can correct high refractive errors without any change in the shape of cornea. ,
Several types of phakic IOLs (pIOLs) are available, such as anterior chamber phakic IOLs (ACpIOLs) and posterior chamber phakic IOLs (PCpIOLs). An example of the ACpIOL is Artiflex; the implantable contact lens (ICL) or STAAR® lens is an example of a PCpIOL. The Artiflex is made of polysiloxane and the ICL (STAAR®) is made of a hydrophilic material known as Collamer.
In this article, we compare the two types of pIOLs, Artiflex versus STAAR® , for correcting high myopia.
| Materials and Methods|| |
This was a randomized, prospective clinical trial. This study was performed on 40 eyes of 20 patients with high myopia, seeking correction of their refractive error. Patients with underlying systemic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, malignancies or other ocular diseases were excluded from the study. The procedure, advantages, probable complications and other therapeutic alternatives were described to all the patients. This study was performed after obtaining informed consent from the patients.
All the patients were over 20 years of age and underwent complete ophthalmologic examination. The best corrected and uncorrected visual acuities were similar between two eyes. The refractive error was −6 to −14 diopters, with the astigmatism up to −2 diopters. There was no anisometropia in the patients. The anterior chamber depth was greater than 3 mm in all the patients, determined ultrasonographically from the endothelial surface of cornea to anterior surface of the iris. Randomly, an Artiflex pIOL was inserted in one eye and an ICL (STAAR®) was implanted in the other eye with 2 weeks interval. This interval was chosen to prevent binocular complication of intraocular surgery or reaction to IOL material. All of the patients underwent surgery under local anesthesia, with small temporal incision (3.2 mm). A surgical peripheral iridectomy (PI) was performed in all patients and the incision was closed with corneal stromal hydration. Postoperatively, all the patients were followed at regular intervals (day 1, week 1, week 2, month 1, month 2, month 6, and year 1) to evaluate the outcomes and complication. After 1 year, all the patients were reevaluated. Visual acuities, intraocular pressure (IOP), intraocular inflammation, cataract formation, contrast sensitivity (3, 6, 12, 18 cycles per degree), and specular microscopy for corneal endothelium were assessed.
| Results|| |
All patients were between 26 and 29 years old (mean = 27 years). Ten patients were males and the other 10 were females.
Artiflex pIOL group: In this study, the Artiflex pIOL was inserted in 20 eyes. The mean postoperative sphere equivalent was −0.75 diopters in the ICL group and −0.84 diopters in Artiflex group. The postoperative mean cylinder power was lesser than −0.25 diopters in both groups. The preoperative uncorrected visual acuities (UCVA) were counting finger (CF) at 1 m for 12 eyes, CF at 2 m for 7 eyes, and CF at 3 m for 1 eye. The preoperative best corrected visual acuities (BCVA) were 10/10 for 10 eyes, 9/10 for 8 eyes, and 7/10 for 2 eyes. One year after surgery, the UCVAs were 10/10 for 12 eyes, 9/10 for 3 eyes, 8/10 for 3 eyes, and 7/10 for 2 eyes. The BCVAs were 10/10 for 17 eyes and 9/10 for 3 eyes.
There was a statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative UCVA in Artiflex group (P = 0.000). There was also a statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative BCVA in this group (P = 0.011).
STAAR® ICL group: For other eyes of 20 patients, we inserted ICL. Preoperative UCVAs were CF at 1 m for 13 eyes, CF at 2 m for 6 eyes, and CF at 3 m for 1 eye. Preoperative BCVAs were 10/10 for 10 eyes, 9/10 for 8 eyes, and 7/10 for 2 eyes. Postoperative UCVAs were 10/10 for 11 eyes, 9/10 for 6 eyes, 8/10 for 1 eye, 7/10 for 1 eye, and 6/10 for 1 eye. Postoperative BCVAs were 10/10 for 17 eyes and 9/10 for 3 eyes [Table 1],[Table 2],[Table 3],[Table 4].
|Table 1: The preoperative uncorrected visual acuity (Log MAR) of implantable contact lens and Artiflex group |
Click here to view
|Table 2: The preoperative best corrected visual acuity (Log MAR) of implantable contact lens and Artiflex group |
Click here to view
|Table 3: The postoperative uncorrected visual acuity of implantable contact lens and Artiflex group |
Click here to view
|Table 4: The postoperative best corrected visual acuity of implantable contact lens and Artiflex group |
Click here to view
There was a statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative UCVA in the ICL group (P = 0.000). There was also a statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative BCVA in this group (P = 0.011).
There was no statistically significant difference between postoperative UCVA or BCVA between Artiflex and ICL groups (P = 0.786).
In assessing the IOP that was measured by Goldman tonometry, there was no significant difference of preoperative IOP between the two groups (P = 0.76). There was statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative IOP in Artiflex and ICL groups (P = 0.001) [Table 5]. There was no case of glaucoma or IOP greater than 21 mm Hg, 1 year after surgery. There was no statistical difference of IOP between two groups 1 year postoperatively (P = 0.604).
|Table 5: The mean pre and postoperative intraocular pressure of implantable contact lens and Artiflex group. (mm Hg) |
Click here to view
In assessing the crystalline lens opacity, there was one case of posterior subcapsular cataract 1 year after surgery in each group. There was no significant difference in cataract formation rate after surgery between the two groups (P = 1.0).
In assessing the status of the corneal endothelium by specular microscopy, no statistically significant difference of postoperative mean endothelial cell count and coefficient of variation (CV) between two groups was found (P = 0.72 and 0.25, respectively) [Table 6]. The hexagonal endothelial cell percent was similar between the two groups 1 year postoperatively (P = 0.73).
|Table 6: The postoperative mean and standard deviation of endothelial cell count of implantable contact lens and Artiflex group |
Click here to view
With respect to the anterior chamber cell and flare, in the Artiflex group, eight eyes developed trace cell and flare in the anterior chamber 1 year after operation, but there was no case of anterior chamber cell and flare in the ICL group postoperatively. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.03).
There was no statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity between the two groups [Table 7].
|Table 7: The postoperative contrast sensitivity of implantable contact lens and Artiflex group. (mm Hg) and Artiflex group |
Click here to view
| Discussion|| |
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes and complications of two pIOLs in patients with high myopia. In several studies, pIOL has been reported as a safe, effective, stable, and predictable method for correcting refractive errors such as high myopia and hyperopia. ,,
This method has also been used for correcting high myopic astigmatism. 
In our study, the Artiflex pIOL was inserted in one eye and the ICL in the other eye of 20 patients randomly, to exclude the effects of sex, age, and person as confounding effects. As mentioned previously, no significant difference in visual acuity improvement was detected between the two groups. In a study conducted in the USA, two pIOLs (Visian ICL versus Verisyse) were compared. In that study, only the binocular UCVA was better in Visian ICL group; there was no difference in monocular UCVA between the two groups. A better refractive outcome was reported in the Visian ICL group. 
As mentioned previously, a postoperative IOP rise was noted in both groups 1 year after surgery; but there was no case of glaucoma or IOP greater than 21 mm Hg. This may be due to performance of a routine surgical peripheral iridectomy during the surgery. The high vaulting of ICL can cause pupillary block and close angle glaucoma. The Artiflex can also cause angle closure glaucoma induced by pupillary block. Iris pigment release can also cause increased IOP. In a study that assessed the effect of ICL on anterior chamber angle and pigmentation, it was noted that the ICL caused narrowing of anterior chamber angle from 30 to 20 in 20% of patients. Pigment in the anterior chamber increased following iridotomy. Pigment release may also be attributed to iris rubbing over the ICL. However, this increased pigmentation is transient and improved over 12 months. In this study, the elevated IOP may be due to application of topical steroid 1 week and 1 month postoperatively, which reaches the normal level gradually during 12 months after surgery. So, the ICL insertion seems to be a safe method, but can cause pigmentary change in trabecular meshwork. 
Incidence of cataract formation does not differ between these two groups. In each group, only one case developed posterior subcapsular cataract. The ICL with small size has small vault, so the probability of cataract formation does increase. In one study, PCpIOLs induced anterior subcapsular cataract. 
The causes of the cataract formation are unknown, but may be due to altered aqueous humor dynamics or restricted perfusion. 
A major concern about pIOLs is endothelial cell damage. , Our study showed no significant difference of endothelial cell density and CV of endothelial cell between two eyes 1 year after surgery. A longer follow-up is necessary. In one study where the effect of iris-fixated pIOL on endothelium was evaluated, the endothelial cell loss was shown during the 5 years after surgery, especially in the first 2 years. However, decrease in CV and increase in hexagonal cells was detected gradually during 5 years after surgery. This may indicate increased stability and remodeling of endothelial cells. 
ICL can cause rapid endothelial cell loss initially. However, the hexagonal cell percentage and CV are stable during 5 years after surgery. 
Long-term follow-ups reveal that there is no ongoing chronic cell loss in endothelium layer 4 years after ICL insertion.
In our study, there was a higher incidence of anterior chamber cell and flare in the Artiflex group, which may be attributed to iris rubbing between IOL and crystalline lens. 
Anterior uveitis after pIOL insertion has been reported in several studies. , This complication may be recurrent in the Artiflex group.  The patients with anterior chamber cell and flare have no pain, conjunctival hyperemia, keratic precipitate or other signs of uveitis. So, we cannot consider this evident as anterior uveitis. Recurrent uveitis can lead to occlusion of iridectomy. 
There is no significant difference of contrast sensitivities between two groups postoperatively. It seems that pIOL cause less decrease in contrast sensitivity due to less spherical aberration in contrast to corneal laser ablation.
In summary, these two pIOLs have similar visual outcomes and short-term complication rates with the exception of greater anterior chamber cell and flare in the Artiflex group.
Our study reveals that both these pIOLs are effective and safe, and their implantation is a predictable method for refractive surgery in high myopia.
| References|| |
|1.||Hersh PS, Brint SF, Maloney RK. Photorefractive keratectomy versus laser in situ kerato mileusis for moderate to high myopia: A randomized prospective study. Ophthalmology 1998;105:1512-22. |
|2.||Kawesh GM, Kezerian GM. Laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia with the VISX star laser. Ophthalmology 2000;107:653-61. |
|3.||Pallikaris IG, Siganos DS. Eximer laser is situ kerato mileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for correction of high myopia. J Refract Corneal Surg 1994;10:498-510. |
|4.||Arne JL, Lesueur LC. Phakic posterior chamber lens for high myopia: Functional and anatomical outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:369-74. |
|5.||Davidorf JM, Zaldivar R, Oscherow S. Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens for hyperopia of +4 to +11 diopters. J Refract Surg 1998;14:306-11. |
|6.||Huang D, Schallhorn SC, Sugar A, Farjo AA, Majmudar PA, Trattler WB, et al. Phakic intraocular lens implantation for correetion of myopia: A report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2009;116:2244-58. |
|7.||Pesando PM, Ghiringhello MP, Di Megilo G, Fanton G. Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens for hyperopia: Ten-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:1579-84. |
|8.||Tehrani M, Dick HB. Short term follow up after implantation of a foldable iris - fixated intraocular lens in phakic eyes. Ophthalmology 2005;112:2189-95. |
|9.||Schallhorn S, Tanzer D, Sanders DR, Sanders ML. Randomized prospective comparison of visian toric implantable collamer lens and conventional photorefractive keratectomy for moderate to high myopic astigmatism. J Refract Surg 2007;23:853-67. |
|10.||Boxer Wachler BS, Scruggs RT, Yuen LH, Jalali S. Comparison of the visian ICL and Verisyse phakic intraocular lenses for myopia from 6.00 to 20.00 diopters. J Refract Surg 2009;25:765-70. |
|11.||Chun YS, Park IK, Lee HI, Lee JH, Kin JC. Iris and trabecular meshwork pigment changes after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1452-8. |
|12.||Brauweiler PH, Wehler T, Busin M. High incidence of cataract formation after implantation of a silicone posterior chamber lens in phakic, highly myopic eyes. Ophthalmology 1999;106:1651-5. |
|13.||Shirantani T, Shimizu K, Fujisawa K, Uga S, Nagano K, Murakami Y. Crystalline lens change in porcine eyes with implanted phakic IOL (ICL) with a central hole. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;246:719-28. |
|14.||Edelhanser HF, Sanders DR, Azar R, Lamielle H. Corneal endothelial assessment after ICL implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:576-83. |
|15.||Perez-Santonja JJ, Iradier MT, Sanz-Iglesias L, Serrano JM, Zato MA. Endothelial change in phakic eyes with anterior chamber intraocular lens to correct high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996;22:1017-22. |
|16.||Benedetti S, Casamenti V, Benedetti M. Long term endothelial changes in phakic eyes after Artisan intraocular lens implantation to correct myopia: Five year study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:784-90. |
|17.||Dejaco-Ruhswurm I, Scholz U, Pieh S, Hanselmayer G, Lackner B, Italon C, et al. Long term endothelial changes in phakic eyes with posterior chamber intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:1589-93. |
|18.||Dick HB, Budo C, Malecaze F, Güell JL, Marinho AA, Nuijts RM, et al. Foldable artiflex phakic intraocular lens for the correction of myopia: Two year follow-up results of a prospective European multicenter study. Ophthalmology 2009;116:671-7. |
|19.||Perez-Santonja JJ, Iradier MT, Benitez-Del Castillo JM, Zato MA. Chronic subclinical inflammation in phakic eyes with intraocular lenses to correct myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996;22:183-7. |
|20.||Leccisotti A. Iridiocyclitis associated with angle- supported phakic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1007-10. |
|21.||Tahzib NG, Eggink FA, Fredrik PM, Nuijts RM. Recurrant intraocular inflammation after implantation of the Artiflex phakic intraocular lens for the correction of high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1388-9. |
|22.||Park IK, Lee JM, Chun YS. Recurrent occlusion of laser iridotomy sites after posterior chamber phakic IOL implantation. Korean J Ophthalmol 2008;22:130-2. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7]
|This article has been cited by|
||Evaluation of Visual Outcome of 2 Phakic Posterior Chamber Implantable Lenses in High Myopia: A Comparative Study
| ||Ayushi Sinha, Rajesh Sinha, Vinay Gupta, Rinky Agarwal, Prafulla K. Maharana, Tushar Agarwal, Namrata Sharma, Jeewan Singh Titiyal |
| ||Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice. 2022; 48(1): 38 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Visian® ICLV4c™ and Artiflex®: Comparative Analysis with the HD Analyser™ and Integration with Subjective Performance and Anatomical Parameters
| ||Pedro Manuel Baptista, Sílvia Monteiro, Ana Carolina Abreu, João Poças, Diana José, Miguel Lume, Maria do Céu Pinto |
| ||Clinical Ophthalmology. 2020; Volume 14: 4541 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Comparison of Toric Implantable Collamer Lens and Toric Artiflex Phakic IOLs in Terms of Visual Outcome: a Paired Contralateral Eye Study
| ||Mohammad Ghoreishi, Abolfazl Kashfi, Mohammadreza Peyman, Mohadeseh Mohammadinia |
| ||American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020; 219: 186 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|