Comparing Quality of Life Post Myopic Astigmatic Refractive Surgeries: FS-LASIK vs ICL

Ankit S. Varshney¹ , Saloni N. Desai² , Chetna Patel³

1. Optometry Department, Shree Bharatimaiya College of Optometry & Physiotherapy, Surat, India.
2. Optometry Department, Shree Bharatimaiya College of Optometry & Physiotherapy, Surat, India.
3. Optometry Department, Shree Bharatimaiya College of Optometry & Physiotherapy, Surat, India.

Section:Research Paper, Product Type: Journal-Paper
Vol.11 , Issue.3 , pp.1-7, Sep-2024

Online published on Sep 30, 2024

Copyright © Ankit S. Varshney, Saloni N. Desai, Chetna Patel . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 

View this paper at   Google Scholar | DPI Digital Library

XML View     PDF Download

How to Cite this Paper

29 Views    90 Downloads    11 Downloads

Abstract :
Background: This study aims to compare the postoperative outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation in improving visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with myopia or myopic astigmatism. Methods: A prospective, interventional, and observational study was conducted at a tertiary eye care center in Surat, India, involving 120 eyes of 60 patients (30 in each group). Preoperative and postoperative assessments included demographic data, visual acuity measurements (both uncorrected and best corrected), contrast sensitivity, and QoL evaluations using the Quality-of-Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire. Results: Both FS-LASIK and ICL significantly improved visual acuity postoperatively, with average uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) improving from 1.4 ± 0.22 logMAR to 0.1 ± 0.13 logMAR in both groups. The mean spherical equivalent reduced significantly, with FS-LASIK achieving -0.52 ± 0.32 D and ICL achieving -0.87 ± 0.40 D after surgery. Contrast sensitivity also improved in both groups, although no significant differences were observed between them. QoL assessments indicated that both groups experienced significant postoperative improvements, with the ICL group reporting slightly higher QIRC scores (59.34 ± 9.477) compared to FS-LASIK (56.39 ± 8.42). Conclusion: Both FS-LASIK and ICL are effective surgical options for correcting myopia, resulting in substantial improvements in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and QoL. While both procedures significantly enhance patient satisfaction and visual independence, the ICL group exhibited marginally superior QoL outcomes. Further long-term studies are warranted to evaluate the durability of these benefits and to better understand the influence of patient-specific factors on treatment outcomes.

Key-Words / Index Term :
Myopia, refractive surgery, FS-LASIK, ICL, quality of life, QIRC

References :
[1] A. Russo, et al., "Myopia: Mechanisms and Strategies to Slow Down Its Progression," Journal of Ophthalmology, Jun., Vol.2022, pp.1004977, 2022.
[2] G. Prakash, et al., "Femtosecond Laser-assisted Wavefront-guided LASIK Using a Newer Generation Aberrometer: 1-Year Results," Journal of Refractive Surgery, Vol.31, No. 9, pp.600-606, 2015.
[3] A. Gershoni, et al., "Femtosecond laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) yields better results than transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (Trans-PRK) for correction of low to moderate grade myopia," European Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol.31, No.6, pp.2914-2922, 2021.
[4] V. Bhandari, et al., "Implantable collamer lens V4b and V4c for correction of high myopia," Journal of Current Ophthalmology, vol. 27, no. 3-4, pp. 76-81, Feb. 2016.
[5] H. Du, et al., "Quality of vision after myopic refractive surgeries: SMILE, FS-LASIK, and ICL," BMC Ophthalmology, Jun., Vol.23, No.1, pp.291, 2023.
[6] P. Lazon de la Jara, et al., "Visual and non-visual factors associated with patient satisfaction and quality of life in LASIK," Eye (London, England), Vol.25, No.9, pp.1194-1201, 2011.
[7] P. Giri and D. T. Azar, "Risk profiles of ectasia after keratorefractive surgery," Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, Vol.28, No.4, pp.337-342, 2017.
[8] R. Wang, H. Guo, T. Ma, H. Liang, and T. Long, "A comparative study of visual quality between implantable collamer lens implantation and femtosecond LASIK for myopia," Zhonghua Shiyan Yanke Zazhi/Chinese Journal of Experimental Ophthalmology, Vol.35, pp.833-837, 2017.
[9] Y. Ye, F. Liu, Z. Zhang, L. Niu, W. Shi, X. Wanget al., "Comparison of long-term outcomes between implantable collamer lens v4c and fs-lasik for myopia correction with presbyopia",, 2023.
[10] A. E. Sarhan, A. F. Ellakwa, and I. A. Sallam, "Visual outcome after Femtolasik vs. ICL for correction of high myopia," Menoufia Medical Journal, Vol. 35, No.2, 2022.
[11] H. Kobashi, et al., "Long-term quality of life after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation and after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia," Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol.40, No.12, pp.2019-2024, 2014.
[12] Z. Jiang, et al., "Optical and visual quality comparison of implantable collamer lens and femtosecond laser assisted laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia correction," International Journal of Ophthalmology, May , Vol.14, No.5, pp.737-743, 2021.