ESCRS - FP53 - COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IRIS-CLAW INTRAOCULAR LENS IMPLANTATION AND IMPLANTABLE COLLAMER LENS – PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IRIS-CLAW INTRAOCULAR LENS IMPLANTATION AND IMPLANTABLE COLLAMER LENS – PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES

Published 2022 - 26th ESCRS Winter Meeting

Reference: FP53 | Type: Abstracts | DOI: 10.82333/2p11-a683

Authors: Matthew Azzopardi* 1 , Franco Mercieca 2

1Ophthalmology,Birmingham and Midland Eye Centre,Birmingham,United Kingdom, 2Ophthalmology,Mater Dei Hospital,Birkirkara,Malta

Purpose

To compare for the first time patient experience and satisfaction of iris-claw implantation to implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation.

Setting

Saint James Eye clinic, a private hospital in Malta specialising in refractive surgery.

Methods

A cross-sectional study design with no randomisation or control groups was utilised.  Patients who underwent either surgery between 2010 and 2020 were identified from hospital records.  Phone interviews were performed in June 2021 using a semi-structured questionnaire, with questions divided into pre-operative build-up, patient experience and post-operative issues.  To standardise patient experience a five-point Likert scale was used.  Perioperative data was collected from their medical files, and all data was interpreted using SPSS software.

Results

After exclusions, 20 ICL patients (40 eyes) and 17 iris-claw patients (34 eyes) were included.  An immediate satisfactory improvement of vision was reported in a higher frequency of ICL patients (n=19, 95%) than iris-claw patients (n=12, 71%) (P=.20054).  A higher proportion of the ICL cohort completely agreed that the surgery improved their vision significantly (ICL n=18, 90%; iris-claw n=8, 47%; P=.03318) and that they would recommend it (ICL n=19, 95%; iris-claw n=8, 47%; P=.01468).  Postoperative issues were comparable, but iris-claw patients experienced more long-term glare (iris-claw n=8, 47%; ICL n=1, 5%; P<.01).  Both techniques completely eliminated contact lens use.  Astigmatic ICL patients were more satisfied, with 89%(n=17) completely agreeing that they would recommend the surgery, in comparison to 50%(n=6) of astigmatic iris-claw patients (P=.015). 

 

Conclusion

ICL is superior to iris-claw in terms of patient satisfaction, efficacy and long-term issues, and also in astigmatic patients.  Short-term issues were comparable.  Both types of surgery succeeded in decreasing contact lens use, further contributing to an improved quality of life.  Clinically this could help guide phakic intraocular lens technique selection for better patient satisfaction.