Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Comparison of accommodation and accommodative micro-fluctuation after implantable collamer lens and LASIK surgery for myopia

BMC Ophthalmology volume 22, Article number: 8 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To longitudinally analyze and compare the accommodative micro-fluctuation (MFs) and accommodative function between myopic patients after implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

Methods

Patients with good corrected visual acuity (20/20 or better) and underwent ICL (V4c) and LASIK for myopic-correction (ranging from − 3.50 to − 8.50 D) were recruited. Refraction, amplitude of accommodation (AMP), accommodative lag, higher-order aberration (HOA), and MFs were recorded before surgery and 1 and 3 months after surgery. The ACOMEREF automatic refractor was used to measure the high-frequency component (HFC) of the MFs, which suggested tension of the ciliary muscle.

Results

The study comprised 120 eyes. At 3 months after surgery, the manifest refractive spherical equivalent of the ICL and LASIK groups were − 0.11 and − 0.09 D, respectively (p = 0.46). HFC values were significantly higher at 1 month (p = 0.03) and 3 months postoperatively (p = 0.03) in the ICL group compared to that in the LASIK group. The ocular HOA of the ICL group was 1.08 ± 0.43 μm, which was lower than the LASIK group 1.45 ± 0.54 μm (p = 0.01). No significant differences in AMP and accommodative lag between groups were noted at 3 months postoperatively. There was a positive correlation between HFC and vault of the ICL lens (r2 = 0.14, p = 0.005). There were no correlations between HFC and ocular HOA and postoperative MRSE in the two groups (all p>0.05).

Conclusions

The HFC increased significantly after an early period of ICL implantation compared to laser in situ keratomileusis for myopic correction, which indicated increased tension of the ciliary muscle, and had a positive correlation on the vault of the ICL lens; However, studies with longer follow-up time and more structural evaluation are needed.

Peer Review reports

Background

Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is the dominant and most effective operation for the correction of myopia [1,2,3]. However, after LASIK surgery, especially in the early period, there have been some visual complaints, such as fatigue or blurriness at near-distance working, which may be responsible for accommodative dysfunction or increased accommodative need for near-working [4]. Implantable collamer lens installation (ICL) is becoming an increasingly acceptable treatment method for myopia [5]. Previous studies [6,7,8] showed the safety and effectiveness of ICL correction in myopic eyes. Outcomes from these studies have been dedicated to the viability of ICL as an alternative way to current corneal refractive surgery. Previous publications [9, 10] have demonstrated that visual quality, such as higher-order aberration (HOA) and contrast sensitivity after ICL, was better than in eyes that had LASIK. Until now, there was still no research comparing the accommodative function of the two methods. Moreover, there are still controversies about accommodative function after ICL implantation [11, 12].

Accommodative micro-fluctuations (MFs) are one of the important parameters for evaluating accommodative function. MFs refer to a state under a stable accommodative stimuli when real-time accommodative power of the human eye fluctuates within a certain range [13]. Moreover, one previous study showed that high-frequency (1.3 to 2.2 Hz, HFC) of MFs represent tension of the ciliary muscle, that is, when the ciliary muscle contraction load increases, the HFC increases [14]. The ACOMEREF refractometer (Righton, Japan), which uses infrared light to record the HFC of MFs under different accommodative stimuli, has been proven to be useful to objectively evaluate the stress of the ciliary muscle [15].

The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the subjective accommodation and objective accommodative micro-fluctuations between patients after ICL and LASIK, and to identify possible factors that impact accommodation in the two groups, such as refraction, aberration, or ICL implantation.

Methods

Patients and study design

This prospective, and case-controlled study included 60 eyes from 30 patients who were scheduled for implantation of the V4c Visian ICL (STAAR Surgical Company, Monrovia, California, USA), and 60 eyes from 30 patients who were scheduled for LASIK to correct myopia or myopic astigmatism with refraction ± spherical equivalent − 6.13 ± 1.17 D (range − 3.50 to − 8.50 D). Both surgical treatments were performed by one surgeon (Dr. Wang). The study conformed with the tests of the Declaration of Helsinki, and prior informed consent was obtained from all participants. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Guangzhou Aier Eye Hospital.

Patient were included in this study if their age was over 21 years, manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) had maintained stability (the increase was less than 0.5 D per year) for more than 2 years, and their best corrected distance visual acuity was better than 20/20.

Patient were excluded from this study if their age was older than 40 years, they had previous ocular surgery, density of the corneal endothelial cell was ≤2000 cells/mm2, depth of the anterior chamber was ≤2.8 mm, and if there was evidence of corneal infection, corneal inflammation, glaucoma, amblyopia, anisometropia, presbyopia, keratoconus, or retinal detachment.

LASIK and ICL procedures

LASIK procedure

The FS200 (Alcon Laboratories, Ft Worth, TX, USA) was used to create a corneal flap of thickness 110 to 120 μm. The Wavelight EX500 (Alcon Laboratories) with custom-Q mode was used to correct myopia or myopic astigmatism with a 6.5 mm diameter optical zone. The refraction was adjusted according to a similar nomogram recommendation (A_LI_D1_Nomogramm STD_10_2007 Rev. 0 Mar 2011).

ICL implantation

The V4c ICL was inserted through a 2.8 mm corneal incision within the anterior chamber preserving viscosurgical material (Opegan; Santen, Osaka, Japan). The implanted ICL was then moved from the anterior chamber to the posterior chamber. After the ICL was lifted to the posterior chamber, the viscosurgical material was completely washed out using a balanced saline solution. Manifest refraction (without nomogram adjustment) was used to calculate the lens power performed by STAAR, and all eyes were targeted for emmetropia.

Measurement

The UCVA, near vision (40 cm), MRSE, aberration, accommodative function, and MFs were recorded before the operation, and 1 month and 3 months postoperatively. The root mean square of the spherical-like aberration (12th = \({Z}_4^0\) and 24th = \({Z}_6^0\) terms), coma-like aberration (7th = \({Z}_3^{-1}\), 8th = \({Z}_3^1\), 17th = \({Z}_5^{-1}\), and 18th = \({Z}_5^1\) terms) and trefoil-like aberration (6th = \({Z}_3^{-3}\), 9th = \({Z}_3^3\), 16th = \({Z}_5^{-3}\), and 19th = \({Z}_5^3\) terms) of the ocular, cornea, and internal aberration were tested by OPD-Scan®III (NIDEK, Japan) for 6-mm pupils. Total HOA were calculated as the root mean square of all terms including the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth order. The accommodative function included the amplitude of accommodation (AMP) and accommodative lag. The AMP was measured using the minus lens method, and the accommodative lag were measured using the fusion cross-cylinder method based on previous study [11]. The AMP, accommodative lag, and the MFs parameters were required to be measured three times, and the average value was taken as the final outcomes. At 1 month and 3 months postoperatively, we tested the central ICL vault by the anterior segment optical coherence tomography (in a similar darkness conditions.

Accommodative Micro-fluctuation

The ACOMOREF 2 (Righton, Japan) with AMF mode was used to record the MFs outcomes in this study [15]. It is an infrared optometer with a spectral power calculation to analysis and record the non-stationary spectrum of MF. The MFs were caused by the movement of the crystalline lens due to ciliary muscle oscillation under accommodative stimuli. Before starting the examination, patients were asked to relax in a dark room for at least 5 min, and the MFs measurement was tested on the dominant eye first. During the testing period, the patients were requested to stare clearly at the fixation target with minimal and quick blinks. The accommodative stimuli were set from + 0.50 D to − 3.00 D in 0.50 D increments that included eight accommodative stimuli. The waveforms of accommodative responses were transformed into a three-dimension graph, which demonstrates HFC, accommodation stimulus, and amplitude of accommodative response.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 22.0, International Business Machines Corp). P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used for confirming data normality, independent t-tests for continuous variables, and Wilcoxon tests for comparing continuous variables without normality.

Results

A total of 60 people (120 eyes) participated in this study with an average age of 27.6 ± 4.9 years (range 20–38 years). As shown in Table 1, the preoperative baseline parameters of groups were well-balanced, including age, MRSE, AMP, accommodative lag, HFC, and HOA (all p>0.05). At 3 months after surgery, there was no significant difference in postoperative MRSE between the two groups (− 0.11 ± 0.24 D for the ICL group versus − 0.09 ± 0.18 D for the LASIK group, p = 0.46).

Table 1 The preoperative baseline characteristics of the ICL and LASIK groups
Full size table

AMP and accommodative lag

As shown in Fig. 1, the accommodative lag of the ICL group were higher than the LASIK group (0.86 ± 0.23 D vs. 0.47 ± 0.28 D, p<0.05) at 1 month after surgery. There was no significant difference in the accommodative lag between the ICL and the LASIK groups at 3 months after surgery. The accommodative lag of the ICL group showed an early increasing and later decreasing trend in the 1- to 3-month follow-up period. However, in the LASIK group, accommodative lag showed a continuously decreasing trend. The differences in the changes of accommodative lag (postoperative versus preoperative) between the two groups at 3 months postoperatively were not statistically significant (p>0.05). At 3 months after surgery, there were no differences in the AMP values in both ICL and LASIK surgeries (all p>0.05). The postoperative AMP of the ICL and the LASIK group was 4.66 ± 1.04 D and 4.55 ± 1.39 D, respectively (p = 0.43). There was no difference in the postoperative AMP and Δ AMP of two groups at 1 and 3 months after surgery (all p>0.05).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preoperative and postoperative amplitude of accommodation (A), accommodative lag (B), HFC (C) and refraction (D) after ICL and LASIK surgeries. (Postop-1 m means 1 month after operation; Postop-3 m means 3 months after operation; HFC means high-frequency component of the accommodative micro-fluctuation; * indicates that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups by student-t test)

Full size image

Higher-order Wavefront aberration

As shown in Table 2, the ocular Δcoma, corneal Δ spherical aberration (SA), corneal Δcoma, and internal ΔSA that were induced were significantly lower after ICL implantation than after LASIK (p = 0.01, < 0.001, < 0.001, and 0.02, respectively). At 3 months after operation, the ocular total HOA of the ICL group was 1.08 ± 0.43 μm, which was lower than the LASIK group 1.45 ± 0.54 μm (p = 0.01). The corneal HOA, coma, and SA of the ICL group were 0.31 ± 0.74 μm, 0.29 ± 0.19 μm, and 0.31 ± 0.08 μm, which were lower than those of the LASIK group (all p < 0.05) (Fig. 2).

Table 2 Higher-order aberration in eyes undergoing phakic posterior chamber implantable contact lens implantation (V4c) and laser in situ keratomileusis for 6-mm pupils at three months postoperatively
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

The ocular, corneal, and internal HOAin eyes undergoing implantable collamer lens implantation (V4c) and laser in situ keratomileusis for 6-mm pupils at three months postoperatively. (HOA: Higher order aberration; H: Total HOA; C: Coma; T: Trefoil; S: Spherical aberration)

Full size image

Micro-fluctuations

In the ICL group, the HFC at 1 month and 3 months after surgery was 60.60 ± 2.82 and 60.40 ± 4.07 Hz, respectively, which were significantly increased compared with the preoperative HFC (p = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). In the LASIK group, there was no significant differences between the postoperative and the preoperative HFC at any follow-up timepoint, and the HFC values at 3 months after surgery were 59.51 ± 2.56 Hz. The HFC of the ICL group was higher than that of the LASIK group at 1 month (p = 0.03) and 3 months (p = 0.04) after surgery. As shown in Fig. 3, at 3 months after the operation, with increased accommodative stimulus in the ICL group, the amplitude of HFC also increased; the HFCs of the ICL group under eight different accommodative stimuli were higher than those of the LASIK group.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The HFC outcomes within different accommodative stimuli between LASIK and ICL groups before and 3 months after surgery (HFC means high-frequency component of the accommodative micro-fluctuation)

Full size image

Correlation: HFC versus MRSE, Δ HOA and Vault

As shown in Fig. 4, at 3 months after the operation, there were no correlations between HFC and ocular Δ total HOA and postoperative MRSE in the two groups (all p>0.05). In addition, in the ICL group, there was a relationship between the postoperative HFC and the vault (r2 = 0.14, p = 0.005, Y = 0.003*X + 58.65), which indicated that as the vault increased, the HFC value increased.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Linear regression analysis demonstrating the relationships between postoperative HFC and A) vault of implantable collamer lens, B) ΔHOA (preoperative- vs. postoperative-ocular total higher-order wavefront aberration for 6 mm pupils), and C) preoperative manifest refractive spherical equivalent in ICL and LASIK groups. Postoperative HFC had a correlation with the vault of ICL (p<0.05)

Full size image

Discussion

Our study showed that the V4c Visian ICL had comparable objective accommodation compared to LASIK surgery for myopic correction, within similar AMP and accommodative lag outcomes. The HFC increased significantly after 3 months of ICL implantation, which represent increased tension of ciliary muscles after the ICL operation, whereas there were no HFC changes after LASIK surgery. In addition, the vault of the ICL was correlated to postoperative HFC in the ICL group.

Based on previous study [16], the accommodation of a near target in a myopic patient is less than an emmetrope, which could lead to lower activity of the ciliary muscles and longer preservation of accommodation. Thus, after refractive correction, AMP or accommodative function may be improved. However, due to the dysfunction of the ciliary body, zonular fibers, or lens, this improvement may be not observed in patients over 30 years [16]. Moreover, as shown in Prakash’s study [17], although there was an improvement in accommodation in the early period after LAISK, the accommodation could stabilize and approximate the preoperative state at 3 months after the operation. These studies also showed that the AMP could be similar to the preoperative baseline after 3 months of LASIK. In our study, the AMP and the accommodative lag after LASIK may have no identical changes, which was agreement with previous work [4]. In the previous study, Liu et al. [4] also found that there were no changes in the AMP and HFC after LASIK surgery, and they suggested that the LASIK produced no significant effect on accommodation.

Generally, ICL has been considered to maintain the accommodation of eyes because its anterior vault and uncontacted crystalline lens design [18]. Meanwhile, the optic of the ICL needs to be secured in the ciliary sulcus, and there is a possibility that the ICL lens or its footplates may influence the ciliary muscle or tissues around the sulcus. Sheng et al. [19] found that as in the non-accommodative state, more than 53.7% of eyes with footplates rested outside the ciliary sulcus using ultrasound bio-microscopy. They also found that when in an accommodative state, the position of the ciliary-sulcus outside-resting footplate moved closer to the ciliary body or even the zonules. As shown in publications from Kamiya et al. [12], a transient decline of the accommodative amplitude in the early period after ICL implantation was found, and they hypothesized that due to impaction from ICL fixation on the ciliary muscles, the ICL may cause transient dysfunction of the ciliary muscles even if the crystalline lens remained untouched. They did not analyze and evaluate the function of the ciliary muscles directly.

Compared to previous studies on ICL, there was a contradictory outcome related to subjective accommodative function. As shown in Tang’s [20] and Kamiya’s [12] publish, there was a decline of AMP after ICL implantation, while Cheng et al. [11] found that 1 month after ICL surgery, the accommodative function was significantly enhanced, resulting in an increase in AMP, near point convergence, and accommodation facility. Our outcomes showed that the objective amplitude of accommodation had no significant changes after ICL implantation. This discrepancy may be related to different refractive characteristics. As showed in Wan’s study [21], there were different recovery reactions in terms of accommodation when treating myopia with different degrees after ICL surgery. Patients with high myopia may display more obviously accommodative changes after ICL correction. As shown in our study, only eyes with myopia ≤ − 8.5 D were recruited, hence the accommodative function may cause a non-significant change after ICL implantation. Moreover, during the accommodative reaction in the eye with the ICL lens, except when the lens power changes for a specific distance, there were other biometric changes (e.g., in the vault and pupil size) occurring [22, 23]. The power of the eye may be different from expected if the optic eye system cannot remain static [24].

The MFs reflect the influence of the constraints set by the physiological components of the basic mechanism of accommodation; while, it is still unclear what role the MFs play in accommodation. However, one aspect seems clear: the HFC elements of the MFs are not under neurological control and were less dependent on the stimuli conditions (i.e., pupil diameter) [25]. Previous research demonstrated that there was only a certain correlation between HOA and LFC, while, not apparent in the HFC [26]. As shown in our study, there were no significant correlations between HFC and the change of ocular total HOA in either the ICL or the LASIK group.

In a state with ciliary muscle tension, a small accommodative stimulus could cause a large fluctuation and lead to an increased HFC [27]. It should be noted that the HFC may be used to reflect the function of the ciliary muscle. Our study found that there were significant differences in the objective MFs outcome between the ICL and LASIK surgery. This indicated that the HFC of the MFs increased significantly; whereas, there was no change after LASIK surgery. The impaction from ICL fixation may cause transient dysfunction of the ciliary muscles compared to well-balanced LASIK for myopic correction. We further indicated that the ICL lens may produce a reversed force to the ciliary body upon which it was rested and this may increase the tension of the ciliary muscle, resulting in increased HFC. Meanwhile, due to the soft character of the material and the appropriate vault of the ICL lens, the morphology change of the crystalline lens during the maximum and minimum accommodative states would not be impacted, resulting in unchanged AMP. Our study found that there was a slightly positive correlation between HFC and vault; that is, the higher the vault was, the greater the HFC was. This is in accordance with the suggestion above: that ICL with a higher vault may produce a greater reversed force to the ciliary body, which may cause increased HFC compared to ICL with a low vault. In eyes with preoperative MRSE of less than − 8.50 D, there were no significant difference between ICL (− 0.11 D) and LASIK (− 0.09 D) at 3 months after operation in our study, and this refractive outcomes were simialr as previous study [28]. Moreover, in our study, we had found no relationship between MRSE and HFC in both ICL and LASIK groups. Previous literatures show that the degree of myopia is positively correlated with the amount of accommodative HFC [27]. While the effects were influenced by the age and myopic-progression status [25]. In our study, only patietnts with stable myopic progression statues, and their age were older than 18 years were recruited. Then, the HFC may had no significantly changing in LASIK group.

Based on a study within 4 years follow-up, the lense thickness would gradually increase after 12 months of ICL implantation and turn less remarkbale, and they also found that there were a negative raletionship between vault and lens thickness [29]. Richdale et al. foud that accommodation were correlated with lens thickness [30]. So in a long follow-up, the lens rise could be a reason that affacted accommodation after ICL operation.

There were some limitations in our study. First, we observed accommodation and micro-fluctuation only within 3 months follow-up postoperatively. Over this time period, there will be some adaptions. As shown by Kamiya et al. [12], the postoperative accommodative function was impaired in early follow-up after surgery, then recovered gradually. Thus, studies with a longer follow-up period are needed in future work. Second, in this study, we only assessed the MFs outcomes, which reflected the function of the ciliary muscles. A greater value of the HFC of accommodative micro-fluctuations was associated with thinner ciliary bodies using optical coherence tomography [27]. Thus, more measurements containing ciliary muscles or ciliary zonules would be helpful to validate and clarify the structural differences under accommodative reaction in our future work. In addition, we did not objectively evaluate visual discomfort in the patients, and this discomfort when near-working might be negligible in some patients. It would be better if visual discomfort was evaluated with a questionnaire in future work [31].

Conclusions

ICL (V4c) implantation and LASIK can obtain similar amplitude of accommodation and accommodative lag for myopic correction. Compared to LASIK surgery, the HFC of micro-fluctuations, which reflect tension of the ciliary muscle, increased significantly after 3 months of the ICL implantation, and had a positive correlation with the vault. This supports the view that the ICL lens may produce a reversed force to the ciliary body where it rested on, increasing the tension of the ciliary muscle. Future study with a longer post-operative follow-up time and more structural measurements would be helpful to elucidate the mechanism.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ICL:

Implantable collamer lens

LASIK:

Laser in situ keratomileusis

MFs:

Accommodative micro-fluctuation

AMP:

Amplitude of accommodation

HOAs:

High-order aberrations

HFC:

High-frequency component

References

  1. Ikeda T, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, Kasahara S, Kamiya K. Twelve-year follow-up of laser in situ Keratomileusis for moderate to high myopia. Biomed Res Int. 2017;9391436.

  2. Alió JL, Soria F, Abbouda A, Peña-García P. Laser in situ keratomileusis for −6.00 to −18.00 diopters of myopia and up to −5.00 diopters of astigmatism: 15-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(1):33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wallerstein A, Gauvin M, Qi SR, Cohen M. Effect of the Vectorial difference between manifest refractive astigmatism and anterior corneal astigmatism on topography-guided LASIK outcomes. J Refract Surg. 2020;36(7):449–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu L, Yuan J, Li J, Li XY, Wang YL. Effect of laser in situ keratomileusis on accommodation. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2008;28(5):596–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Moshirfar M, Somani AN, Motlagh MN, Vaidyanathan U, Sumsion JS, Barnes JR, et al. Comparison of FDA-reported visual and refractive outcomes of the Toric ICL Lens, SMILE, and topography-guided LASIK for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(11):699–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sanders DR, Doney K, Poco M. ICL in treatment of myopia study group. United States Food and Drug Administration clinical trial of the implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) for moderate to high myopia: three-year follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(9):1683–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alfonso JF, Baamonde B, Fernández-Vega L, Fernandes P, González-Méijome JM, Montés-Micó R. Posterior chamber collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lenses to correct myopia: five-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(5):873–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanders DR, Vukich JA, Doney K, Gaston M. Implantable contact Lens in treatment of myopia study group. U.S. Food and Drug Administration clinical trial of the implantable contact Lens for moderate to high myopia. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(2):255–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kamiya K, Igarashi A, Shimizu K, Matsumura K, Komatsu M. Visual performance after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for low to moderate myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(6):1178–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shin JY, Ahn H, Seo KY, Kim EK, Kim TI. Comparison of higher order aberrations after implantable Collamer Lens implantation and Wavefront-guided LASEK in high myopia. J Refract Surg. 2012;28(2):106–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen MJ, Long QR, Gu H, Hong JX. Accommodation changes after visian implantable collamer lens with central hole for high myopia: a STROBE-compliant article. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(28):e16434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Aizawa D, Ishikawa H. Time course of accommodation after implantable collamer lens implantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(5):674–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Campbell FW, Robson JG, Westheimer G. Fluctuations of accommodation under steady viewing conditions. J Physiol. 1959;145(3):579–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Charman WN, Heron G. Fluctuations in accommodation: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8(2):153–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kajita M, Muraoka T, Orsborn G. Changes in accommodative micro-fluctuations after wearing contact lenses of different optical designs. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020;43(3):493–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Karimian F, Baradaran-Rafii A, Bagheri A, Eslani M, Bayat H, Aramesh S, et al. Accommodative changes after photorefractive keratectomy in myopic eyes. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87(11):833–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Prakash G, Choudhary V, Sharma N, Titiyal JS. Change in the accommodative convergence per unit of accommodation ratio after bilateral laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia in orthotropic patients: prospective evaluation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(12):2054–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Assetto V, Benedetti S, Pesando P. Collamer intraocular contact lens to correct high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996;22(5):551–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheng XL, Rong WN, Jia Q, Liu YN, Zhuang WJ, Gu Q, et al. Outcomes and possible risk factors associated with axis alignment and rotational stability after implantation of the Toric implantable collamer lens for high myopic astigmatism. Int J Ophthalmol. 2012;5(4):459–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tang Y, Ye J. Accommodation after an implantable collamer lens implantation in high myopia patients. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(10):6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wan T, Yin HF, Wu ZY, Yang YB. Comparative study of implantable Collamer Lens implantation in treating four degrees of myopia: six-month observation of visual results, higher-order aberrations, and amplitude of accommodation. Curr Eye Res. 2020;45(7):839–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee H, Kang SY, Ha BJ, Choi MJ, Kim EK, Seo KY, et al. Effect of accommodation on vaulting and movement of posterior chamber Phakic lenses in eyes with implantable Collamer lenses. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(4):710–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gonzalez-Lopez F, Mompean B, Bilbao-Calabuig R, Vila-Arteaga J, Beltran J, Baviera J. Dynamic assessment of light-induced vaulting changes of implantable Collamer Lens with central port by swept-source OCT: pilot study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018;7(3):4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hernández-Rodríguez CJ, Piñero DP. A systematic review about the impact of phakic intraocular lenses on accommodation. J Optom. 2019;13(3):139–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Charman WN, Heron G. Microfluctuations in accommodation: an update on their characteristics and possible role. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015;35(5):476–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lupón N, Gispets J, Cardona G, Tàpia A, Abril H. Role of microfluctuations in accommodation: a novel approach to reduce non-accommodative noise. Int J Ophthalmol. 2019;12(4):681–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schultz KE, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO, Bailey MD. Accommodative fluctuations, lens tension, and ciliary body thickness in children. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(6):677–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sanders D, Vukich JA. Comparison of implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) and laser-assisted in situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) for low myopia. Cornea. 2006;25:1139–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lu Y, Yang N, Li XD, et al. Four-year follow-up of the changes in anterior segment after Phakic Collamer Lens implantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;178:140–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Richdale K, Bullimore MA, Zadnik K. Lens thickness with age and accommodation by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008;28(5):441–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00594.x.

  31. Drew SA, Borsting E, Escobar AE, Liu CM, Castellanos E, Chase C. Can chronic visual discomfort measures accurately predict acute symptoms? Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(10):1149–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable for this study.

Funding

No funds or other support were received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aier School of Ophthalmology, Central South University, Fourth Floor, New Century Mansion, 198 Middle Furong Road, Changsha, China

    Li Li & Zheng Wang

  2. Department of Refractive Surgery, Guangzhou Aier Eye Hospital, Guangzhou, China

    Li Li, Bo Zhang & Zheng Wang

  3. Chongqing Eye and Vision Care Hospital, Chongqing, China

    Li Li

  4. Aier Institute of Refractive Surgery, Aier Eye Hospital Group, Changsha, China

    Li Li, Bo Zhang & Zheng Wang

Authors
  1. Li Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zheng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LL and ZW contributed to the design of the manuscript. LL collected the data. LL, BZ and ZW performed the clinical examination and investigation. LL revised the intellectual content of the manuscript. ZW and BZ critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zheng Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the institutional research board (IRB) of the Guangzhou Aier Eye Hospital (GZAIER2019IRB13) and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients included in the study provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable for this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, L., Zhang, B. & Wang, Z. Comparison of accommodation and accommodative micro-fluctuation after implantable collamer lens and LASIK surgery for myopia. BMC Ophthalmol 22, 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02217-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02217-6

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us