AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (625.7 KB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Clinical Research | Open Access

Visual outcomes of implantable Collamer lens and laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis for all levels of myopia

Tsetsegjargal Baasanjav1,2( )Davaalkham Dambadarjaa3Baasankhuu Jamyanjav2Uranchimeg Davaatseren3
Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences, Ulaanbaatar 15160, Mongolia
Bolor-Melmii Eye Hospital, Ulaanbaatar 15160, Mongolia
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences, Ulaanbaatar 15160, Mongolia
Show Author Information

Abstract

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes of the current V4c model of the myopic implantable Collamer lens (ICL) with those of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for the correction of myopia ranging from −2.0 to −18.0 diopters (D).

METHODS

This prospective, non-randomized study enrolled participants who underwent either LASIK or implantation of the ICL V4c at Bolor Melmii Eye Hospital. In the LASIK group, participants received Intralase LASIK (I-LASIK) using the Intralase FS-200 femtosecond laser and the MEL-80 excimer laser. Each group comprised the same number of participants and eyes (38 participants, 73 eyes).

RESULTS

A total of 146 eyes from 76 participants were analyzed. Among the LASIK group, 76.3% were female, with a mean age at surgery of 29.76±5.95y (range, 20–43y). In the ICL group, 92.1% were female, with a mean age of 31.59±8.32y (range, 20–49y). Preoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) did not differ significantly between the LASIK and ICL groups (P=0.68). Postoperatively, the ICL group consistently demonstrated better BCVA (20/20 or better) at all follow-up points, with statistically significant differences observed at 1d (56.2% vs 30.1%, P=0.003) and 3mo (54.8% vs 32.9%, P=0.012). The mean BCVA improvement also favored the ICL group for up to 6mo postoperatively. A higher proportion of eyes in the ICL group achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 or better at 1mo (50.7% vs 41.1%, P=0.319) and 6mo (57.5% vs 43.8%, P=0.136), although these differences were not statistically significant. Predictability was comparable between the groups, except at 6mo, where fewer ICL-treated eyes were within ±0.5 D of the intended correction (49.3% vs 64.4%, P=0.094). Nevertheless, both groups achieved identical outcomes within ±1.0 D (90.4%, P=1.000). Between 1 and 6mo, 78.1% of eyes in the ICL group showed a change in spherical equivalent refraction of no more than 0.5 D, compared to 65.8% in the LASIK group. Refraction stability, defined as a change of less than 1.0 D, remained good in both groups throughout all follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION

Both LASIK and ICL implantation leads to significant improvements in visual outcomes, with early postoperative gains observed in both groups. However, the ICL group demonstrates greater long-term improvement in BCVA compared to the LASIK group, particularly among participants with higher degrees of myopia. Visual outcomes in both groups stabilized by 6mo postoperatively.

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
International Journal of Ophthalmology
Pages 1124-1131

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Baasanjav T, Dambadarjaa D, Jamyanjav B, et al. Visual outcomes of implantable Collamer lens and laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis for all levels of myopia. International Journal of Ophthalmology, 2026, 19(6): 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2026.06.13

980

Views

14

Downloads

0

Crossref

0

Web of Science

0

Scopus

0

CSCD

Received: 30 June 2025
Accepted: 22 September 2025
Published: 18 June 2026
© 2026 International Journal of Ophthalmology Press

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).