Skip to main content
Download PDF

Relative position of the central hole after EVO-ICL implantation for moderate to high myopia

BMC Ophthalmology volume 20, Article number: 305 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the relative position of the central hole (CH) of EVO Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO-ICL), the pupil center (CP), and the corneal center (CC) after implantation of EVO-ICLs for moderate to high myopia.

Methods

Eighty-nine eyes of forty-seven patients with moderate to high myopia were evaluated. The mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was − 12.58 ± 4.13D. A routine postoperative follow-up was performed within 1 ~ 12 months. Positions of the CH of EVO-ICLs, the CP and the CC were recorded using a slit lamp anterior segment photography system, and their relative distances were calculated with the Visio image analysis software.

Results

All surgeries were performed safely, and no complications were observed in follow-ups 4.3 ± 4.82 months after surgery. At the last follow-up, the safety index (postoperative CDVA/preoperative CDVA) was 1.23 ± 0.48, and the efficacy index (postoperative UDVA/preoperative CDVA) was 1.08 ± 0.31. The CH in 85 eyes (95.51%) was superior to the CC, with 47.19% (42/89) on the temporal side and 48.31% (43/89) on the nasal side. The CH in 84 eyes (94.38%) was located on the temporal side of the CP, with 56.18% (50/89) superior and 38.2% (34/89) inferior to the CP. The CP of 85 eyes (95.51%) was superior on the nasal side of the CC. On the defined x-axis, the average distance from the CH to CC was significantly shorter than the average distance from the CP to CC (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

An imperfect match between the central hole of EVO-ICLs and the pupil center does not necessarily indicate ICL dislocation. Compared to the pupil center, the position of the central hole of EVO-ICL is closer to the corneal center.

Peer Review reports

Background

Implantation of a posterior chamber phakic Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL™, STAAR Surgical, Nidau, Switzerland) has proved to be safe and effective to correct moderate to high myopia [1, 2]. There is no limit to the corneal thickness of the ICL implantation, which preserves the integrity of the cornea and the accommodation function of the lens after surgery. More importantly, the implantation of ICL is reversible.

In refractive surgery, accurate centration helps to maximize visual outcomes and is considered to be of great importance [3]. Ideally, the position of the corrected center should be aligned to the optical axis or to the intersection point between the optical axis and the anterior corneal surface [4]. However, it is not possible to directly observe the central position of ICL. EVO Implantable Collamer Lens (EVO-ICL) with CentraFLOW technology is characterized by a 360 μm central hole that can allow natural circulation of the aqueous humour and can decrease the risk of cataract, high intraocular pressure (IOP) and corneal endothelial cell loss after ICL implantation [5, 6]. Moreover, it provides an opportunity to directly observe the central position of the EVO-ICL in the posterior chamber. However, it is a common occurrence that the location of the central hole (CH) of the EVO-ICL is not perfectly aligned with the pupil center (CP). As the structure of the anterior segment of the eye has changed after the implantation of ICL, ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) [7], optical coherence tomography (OCT) [8], and rotating Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam) [9] are used to evaluate the position and the vault of the implanted ICL, as well as relationships between the ICL and its adjacent structures. However, the position of the ICL relative to the corneal center (CC), which was defined as the intersection between the longest horizontal and vertical diameters of the corneal ellipse, has not yet been reported. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to measure the position of the central hole of the EVO-ICL relative to the corneal center and the pupil center, which may be of potential clinical benefit.

Methods

Subjects

This observational study was conducted on patients who underwent EVO-ICL implantation from January 2016 to October 2016 in the Department of Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University. In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, all patients provided written informed consent after receiving detailed explanation of the risks and benefits of the study. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Eye & ENT Hospital (EENT) Fudan University.

The study was conducted on 89 eyes from 47 patients (19 males and 28 females, mean age 29.6 ± 7.42 years) who were recruited. The inclusion criteria for patients who underwent ICL implantation were as follows: age between 20 and 45 years, stable refractive error (refractive error change of ≤0.50 D in the past 2 years), spherical refraction of over − 3.00 D, astigmatism of up to − 6.00 D, and no contact lens use for 2 weeks. Exclusion criteria were anterior chamber depth (ACD) < 2.80 mm, endothelial cell density (ECD) < 2000 cells/mm2, a history of ocular surgery, any chronic systemic disease, inflammation or trauma, and a history of ocular conditions other than myopia with or without astigmatism (suspicion of cornea, cataract, keratectasia, glaucoma, macular degeneration, retinal detachment, or neuro-ophthalmic disease).

EVO-ICL

EVO-ICL corrects − 0.50 D to − 18.00D myopic spherical refraction and up to − 6.00 D cylindrical refraction. The size of the EVO ICL was individually selected based on the horizontal white-to-white (WTW) distance by IOLmaster and the ACD by Pentacam camera system (Oculus, Germany) following the manufacturer’s recommendations. We calculated the size on the website at http://ocos.staarag.ch. The software is version 4.08 for ICL V4c. Power calculation for the EVO-ICL was performed by the software provided by the manufacturer (STAAR Surgical) using a modified vertex formula.

Surgical procedure and follow-ups

Two experienced surgeons (XZ and XW) performed all implantations. Chen X et al. have previously described the surgical procedure [9]. Briefly, before surgery, the pupils were dilated. The anterior chamber was filled with sodium hyaluronate (ProVisc, Alcon), and an EVO-ICL was inserted through a 3.0 mm incision in the temporal corneal limbus using an injector cartridge (STAAR Surgical Co), then positioned in the posterior chamber. The remaining viscoelastic surgical agent was removed using balanced salt solution, before a miotic agent was instilled into the anterior chamber. Postoperative medications included 0.3% tobramycin, 0.1% fluorometholone, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) and artificial tears eye drops.

We determined manifest refraction (spherical equivalent, SE), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), IOP (Canon, Japan), endothelial cell density (ECD, by SP-2000P, Topcon Corporation, Japan), standard slit-lamp biomicroscopic and funduscopic examinations preoperatively and all follow-ups. Anterior chamber depth (ACD) was measured from the corneal endothelium to the anterior lens using a Pentacam camera system and horizontal corneal diameter (white-to-white, WTW) using IOLMaster before surgery. Central corneal thickness (Pentacam), axial length (IOLMaster Carl Zeiss, Germany) and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM; Quantel Medical, France) were performed preoperatively.

Image analysis

Under the same illumination conditions of 330 lx, which was monitored using a photometer (Digitales Luxmeter, Sensorshop24@, Germany), all images were collected in the same room at a 10x magnification using a slit lamp anterior segment photographic system (YZ5FI Slit Lamp + SLICPS 2). Patients sat comfortably with their eyes facing straight ahead. The diffused light from the slit lamp was illuminated 60° from the temporal side. Using Visio image analysis software (version 2013), the size of the center hole was fixed to 360 μm (7.5 pixels) in both the horizontal (X-axis) and vertical (Y-axis) axis, and the image size was then adjusted accordingly. The average horizontal and vertical relative corneal diameters were 214.23 ± 14.66 pixels and 201.78 ± 12.39 pixels, respectively, and the average horizontal and vertical pupil diameters were 52.87 ± 11.95 pixels and 50.58 ± 11.65 pixels, respectively. Images confirmed that both the cornea and the pupil were elliptical (Fig. 1). The actual magnification of the image was calculated according to the following equation: WTW (mm)/relative horizontal diameter of the cornea (mm). Similar to the method reported by Hoang et al. [10], the central hole of EVO-ICL (CH), the corneal center (CC), and the pupil center (CP) were defined as the intersection between the longest horizontal and vertical diameters of the respective ellipse. Each measurement was performed three times by the same physician, and the results were averaged.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The red line and circle is shown for the central hole of the EVO-ICL, the purple line and circle is shown for the pupil center, and the blue line and circle is the corneal center of the right eye. Visio image analysis software was used for image analysis

Full size image

In this study, we set the CC of the fitted corneal image as the reference point (0,0) and the position of CH and CP as (X, Y) using the following formula: D = (X2 + Y2)1/2 and calculated the relative distances from the center hole to the corneal center, D(H-C); the pupil center to the corneal center, D(P-C); and the center hole to the pupil center D(H-P) (Fig. 2). According to the equation: actual distance Ð = relative distance D * WTW (mm)/relative horizontal diameter of the cornea (mm), the actual distances of Ð(H-C), Ð(P-C) and Ð(H-P) were calculated respectively. In all images, the X-axis value of the left eye was converted to a negative value, which was converted to the same nasal and temporal direction as the right eye. The X-axis (ÐHx and ÐPx) and the Y-axis (ÐHy and ÐPy) on Ð(H-C) and Ð(P-C) are shown in Fig. 2. The X-axis (ÐHPx) and the Y-axis (ÐHPy) on Ð(H-P) were defined as the X-axis and the Y-axis of the vector of Ð(H-P).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Relative position of the central hole of EVO-ICL, the corneal center and the pupil center

Full size image

Kappa angle

Pupil offset was used as the estimate of the Kappa angle and defined as the vector between the corneal vertex and the pupil center in the corneal plane. Pupil offset was measured using Pentacam. The x-offset (K-x) and y-offset (K-y) of the vector were recorded respectively. A positive value is defined as the pupil center nasal to the pachy apex (x-offset) and as the pupil center upper to the pachy apex (y-offset).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Stata statistical software, version 14.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). The Wilcoxon Signed-rank test was used for statistical analysis to compare Ð(H-C) and Ð(P-C), ÐHx and ÐPx, ÐHy, and ÐPy. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to assess the correlation between Ð(H-C) and Ð(P-C), ÐHx and ÐPx, and ÐHy and ÐPy, K-x (K-y) and ÐHx (ÐHy), K-x (K-y) and ÐHPx (ÐHPy). Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Safety and efficacy

All surgical procedures were completed successfully, and no complications occurred throughout the entire follow-up period. The median follow-up period was 4.3 ± 4.82 months (range: 1 ~ 12 months). No postoperative complications were observed, and no loss of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was recorded throughout the entire follow-up period. The mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was − 12.58 ± 4.13 D (range: − 5.75 to − 22.75D). The safety index (postoperative CDVA/preoperative CDVA) was 1.23 ± 0.48. No patient had CDVA loss at any follow-up. The efficacy index (postoperative UDVA /preoperative CDVA) was 1.08 ± 0.31, and the mean vault was 525.93 ± 228.43 μm (range: 100 ~ 1070 μm). No eye of ECD decreased to < 2000 cells/mm2 throughout the entire follow-up period.

Relative position of CH to the CC and the CP

Relative to the CC, the CH of EVO-ICL was superior to the CC in 85/89 eyes (95.51%), with 42/89 (47.19%) superior on the temporal side, 43/89 (48.31%) superior on the nasal side, 3/89 (3.37%) inferior on the temporal side, and 1/89 (1.12%) inferior on the nasal side (Fig. 3a). Relative to the CP, the CH was located on the temporal side in 84/89 eyes (94.38%), with 50/89 (56.18%) superior on the temporal side, 34/89 (38.2%) inferior on the temporal side, 2/89 (2.25%) superior on the nasal side, and 3/89 (3.37%) inferior on the nasal side (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3
figure 3

a Scatter plot of the central hole relative to the corneal center. (0, 0) represents the corneal center. b Scatter plot of the central hole relative to the pupil center. (0, 0) represents the pupil center

Full size image

Relative position of the CP to the CC

CP was superior on the nasal side of the CC in 85/89 eyes (95.51%), with 3/89 (3.37%) superior on the temporal side, and 1/89 (1.12%) inferior on the nasal side in (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Scatter plot of the pupil center relative to the corneal center. (0, 0) represents the corneal center

Full size image

Distance between the CH, the CC and the CP

The average Ð(H-C) and Ð(P-C) were 0.37 ± 0.18 mm and 0.42 ± 0.18 mm respectively, and were approaching a statistically significant difference (p = 0.058). The average ÐHx and ÐPx were 0.16 ± 0.12 mm and 0.28 ± 0.19 mm respectively, and were statistically different (p < 0.001). The average ÐHy and ÐPy were 0.30 ± 0.19 mm and 0.27 ± 0.14 mm respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.624). The average Ð(H-P) was 0.35 ± 0.18 mm (range: 0.05 ~ 1.01 mm). Though there was no significant correlation between Ð(H-C) and Ð(P-C) (r = 0.20, p = 0.062), ÐHx was positively correlated with ÐPx (r = 0.57, p < 0.001) and ÐHy with ÐPy (r = 0.42, p < 0.001).

Relationships of kappa angle with Ð(H-C) and Ð(H-P)

There was no significant correlation between K-x and ÐHx (r = − 0.011, P = 0.923), or between K-y and ÐHy (r = − 0.155, P = 0.162), while the relationships between K-x and ÐHPx (r = − 0.253, P = 0.021), K-y and ÐHPy (r = − 0.435, P < 0.001) was significantly correlated postoperatively.

Discussion

The new EVO-ICL has reduced risk of high intraocular pressure (IOP), cataracts, and endothelial cell loss after ICL implantation and is more effective and safer than conventional ICLs due to natural flow through a central whole [5, 6, 11]. The position of the ICLis critical during follow-up since it may be of consequence to corrected visual acuity as well as postoperative complications such as cataracts and glaucoma [5, 11]. However, the position of conventional ICLs, such as the V4, is difficult to evaluate without the use of UBM or a Pentacam [12, 13]. In this study, we were able to evaluate the relative position of the EVO-ICL in the posterior chamber directly based on the position of the center hole in a slit lamp image, without the need for additional inspection.

The selection of ICL diameter depends mainly on the preoperative horizontal corneal diameter (WTW) and anterior chamber depth [14]. There are many studies available on the correlation between WTW and STS. Seo et al. [15] reported that the WTW diameter matched with the distance of the STS on the horizontal direction as measured by UBM. However, Biermann [16] compared emmetropic and myopic eyes, and found that the horizontal direction of the emmetropic STS had a significant correlation with WTW, but there was only a weak correlation between the two in the myopic population. Though the STS distance may not completely be estimated by WTW, the vertical ciliary sulcus was longer than the horizontal ciliary sulcus, which meant the ciliary sulcus was vertical ellipse had been identified. ICLs are usually positioned horizontally in the ciliary sulcus with a rotation of< 5° even implantations of toric intraocular collamer lenses (TICLs) [17, 18]. The haptics of ICL are located at the ciliary sulcus, Hence, the horizontal position of the central hole may be closer to the horizontal center of the ellipse ciliary sulcus. Here, we described the relative position of the central hole, the corneal center and the pupil center, and found that most of central holes of EVO-ICLs were superior to the corneal center and were on the temporal side of the pupil center. Although the difference between Ð(H-C) and Ð(P-C) did not reach statistical significance difference (p = 0.058), Ð(H-C) was significantly shorter than Ð(P-C) on the X-axis (p < 0.001), indicating that the center of the ICL should be positioned relative to the corneal center, which is consistent with our observation. Therefore, it is reasonable to evaluate the position of the EVO-ICL according to the relative position of the central hole to the corneal center.

The mean distance between the pupil center and the corneal center in our study was 0.42 ± 0.18 mm, which was longer than the 0.27 ± 0.14 reported by Medby et al. [19]. This discrepancy could possibly have resulted from the different imaging methods or due the different research conditions. It has been reported that the location of the pupil center may change under various illumination conditions [20,21,22]. Yang et al. [20] reported that the pupil center moved temporally towards the corneal center under mesopic or pharmacologically dilated conditions. And Fay [23] reported that, as the pupil constricts, the most common shift of the pupil center was in a superonasal direction. We also found that the central hole and the pupil center were both upwards relative to the corneal center. Other studies using UBM have shown that ICLs were in contact with the posterior surface of iris [7, 24], suggesting that the mechanical friction between the iris and the ICL could be responsible for the concordant movement of the implanted ICLfollowing the shift of the pupil. Spearman’s correlation analysis showed that ÐHx was positively correlated with ÐPx (r = 0.57, p < 0.001), and ÐHy was positively correlated with ÐPy (r = 0.42, p < 0.001), suggesting that shifts of both the central hole of the EVO-ICL and the pupil center relative to the corneal center were concordant in the horizontal and vertical directions. However, there was no direct correlation between Ð(H-C) and Ð(P-C) (r = 0.20, p = 0.062).

Consideration of the kappa angle is important for correct centration of refractive treatments [25], therefore the influence of kappa angle on the position of ICL was analyzed. We can find that the distance between K-x and ÐHPx or K-y and ÐHPy was significantly corrected, while not K-x and ÐPx or K-y and ÐPy. This may indicate that due to the influence of the Kappa angle, if the pupil center is used as the reference, the position of the central hole would affected by the position and diameter of the pupil. In that case the results may be different under different lighting environments. However if the corneal center is used as the reference, the results may be relatively stable. In this study, we used the slit lamp anterior segment photographic system and objective image analysis to evaluate the relationship between the central hole and the corneal center. This has the benefits of being easy to use, non-invasive, and not requiring any additional equipment, which means that it has certain feasible advantages over other methods for clinical observation.

The current study has several limits. Firstly, this was a cross-sectional study with inconsistent follow-up time from 1 month to 12 months after surgery, and it lacked a comparison of the position changes over time, especially in the early period after surgery. As the vault decreased most significantly at first months after surgery [26], it would have been useful to determine if the center of EVO changed from the first day to the first-month visit, which may influence the position of ICL. Secondly, we did not analyze the relationships between the distance of the central hole to the corneal center and clinical outcomes, such as visual quality, after ICL implantation which may need to be further investigated in future studies.

Conclusions

Although the central hole of the EVO-ICL does not perfectly match the pupil center, it is not necessarily indicative of an ICL dislocation. Compared to the pupil center, the position of the central hole of the EVO-ICL is closer to the corneal center.

Availability of data and materials

Data and materials are available upon request from the corresponding author at doctzhouxingtao@163.com.

Abbreviations

EVO-ICL:

Evolution Visian Implantable Collamer Lens

SE:

Spherical equivalent

D:

Diopter

CH :

Central hole of EVO-ICL

CC :

Corneal center

CP :

Pupil center

IOP:

Intraocular pressure

UBM:

Ultrasound Biomicroscopy

OCT:

Optical coherence tomography

ACD:

Anterior chamber depth

ECD:

Endothelial cell density

WTW:

White-to-white

NSAID:

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

UDVA:

Uncorrected distance visual acuity

CDVA:

Corrected distance visual acuity

SD:

Standard deviation

STS:

Sulcus to sulcus

References

  1. Sanders DR, Doney K, Poco M, Group ICLiToMS. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Igarashi A, Shimizu K, Kamiya K. Eight-year follow-up of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation for moderate to high myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(3):532–9 e531.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vinciguerra P, Randazzo A, Albe E, Epstein D. Tangential topography corneal map to diagnose laser treatment decentration. J Refract Surg (Thorofare, NJ : 1995). 2007;23(9 Suppl):S1057–64.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chang DH, Waring GO. The subject-fixated coaxially sighted corneal light reflex: a clinical marker for centration of refractive treatments and devices. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(5):863–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alfonso JF, Lisa C, Fernandez-Vega L, Almanzar D, Perez-Vives C, Montes-Mico R. Prevalence of cataract after collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lens implantation for myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(4):800–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goukon H, Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A. Comparison of corneal endothelial cell density and morphology after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation with and without a central hole. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(11):1461–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Garcia-Feijoo J, Alfaro IJ, Cuina-Sardina R, Mendez-Hernandez C, Del Castillo JM, Garcia-Sanchez J. Ultrasound biomicroscopy examination of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens position. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(1):163–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baikoff G, Lutun E, Wei J, Ferraz C. Contact between 3 phakic intraocular lens models and the crystalline lens: an anterior chamber optical coherence tomography study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30(9):2007–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen X, Miao H, Naidu RK, Wang X, Zhou X. Comparison of early changes in and factors affecting vault following posterior chamber phakic implantable Collamer Lens implantation without and with a central hole (ICL V4 and ICL V4c). BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16(1):161.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoang TA, Macdonnell JE, Mangan MC, Monsour CS, Polwattage BL, Wilson SF, Suheimat M, Atchison DA. Time course of pupil center location after ocular drug application. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93(6):594–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higueras-Esteban A, Ortiz-Gomariz A, Gutierrez-Ortega R, Villa-Collar C, Abad-Montes JP, Fernandes P, Gonzalez-Meijome JM. Intraocular pressure after implantation of the Visian implantable Collamer Lens with CentraFLOW without iridotomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(4):800–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yan Z, Miao H, Zhao F, Wang X, Chen X, Li M, Zhou X. Two-year outcomes of Visian implantable Collamer Lens with a central hole for correcting high myopia. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:8678352.

  13. Zhao J, Luo D, Sun Y, Niu L, Zhao F, Wang X, Wang H, Chen Q, Zhou X. Implanting a posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens in highly myopic eyes with peripheral primary iris and ciliary body cysts. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29(2):171–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi KH, Chung SE, Chung TY, Chung ES. Ultrasound biomicroscopy for determining visian implantable contact lens length in phakic IOL implantation. J Refract Surg. 2007;23(4):362–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seo JH, Kim MK, Wee WR, Lee JH. Effects of white-to-white diameter and anterior chamber depth on implantable collamer lens vault and visual outcome. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(8):730–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Biermann J, Bredow L, Boehringer D, Reinhard T. Evaluation of ciliary sulcus diameter using ultrasound biomicroscopy in emmetropic eyes and myopic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(9):1686–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mori T, Yokoyama S, Kojima T, Isogai N, Ito M, Horai R, Nakamura T, Ichikawa K. Factors affecting rotation of a posterior chamber collagen copolymer toric phakic intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(4):568–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Park SC, Kwun YK, Chung ES, Ahn K, Chung TY. Postoperative astigmatism and axis stability after implantation of the STAAR Toric implantable Collamer Lens. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(5):403–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mabed IS, Saad A, Guilbert E, Gatinel D. Measurement of pupil center shift in refractive surgery candidates with caucasian eyes using infrared pupillometry. J Refract Surg. 2014;30(10):694–700.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang Y, Thompson K, Burns SA. Pupil location under mesopic, photopic, and pharmacologically dilated conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43(7):2508–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Camellin M, Gambino F, Casaro S. Measurement of the spatial shift of the pupil center. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(9):1719–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Erdem U, Muftuoglu O, Gundogan FC, Sobaci G, Bayer A. Pupil center shift relative to the coaxially sighted corneal light reflex under natural and pharmacologically dilated conditions. J Refract Surg. 2008;24(5):530–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fay AM, Trokel SL, Myers JA. Pupil diameter and the principal ray. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992;18(4):348–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jimenez-Alfaro I, Benitez del Castillo JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Gil de Bernabe JG, Serrano de La Iglesia JM. Safety of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of high myopia: anterior segment changes after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(1):90–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Park CY, Oh SY, Chuck RS. Measurement of angle kappa and centration in refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012;23(4):269–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kojima T, Maeda M, Yoshida Y, Ito M, Nakamura T, Hara S, Ichikawa K. Posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lens: changes in vault during 1 year. J Refract Surg. 2010;26(5):327–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Lin Wang and Tian Han of the Eye Department of EENT Hospital for their helpful advice. We would also like to thank all the patients participating in the study.

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81770955 and 81570879), Project of Shanghai Science and Technology (Grant No .17140902900 and 17411950200), Joint research project of new frontier technology in municipal hospitals (SHDC12018103) and National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholars (Grant No. 81600762). The funding agencies had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, interpretation of data, or writing the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xiaojian He and Lingling Niu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Hangzhou First People’s Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

    Xiaojian He

  2. Eye Institute and Department of Ophthalmology, Eye & ENT Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Lingling Niu, Huamao Miao, Feng Zhao & Xingtao Zhou

  3. NHC Key Laboratory of Myopia (Fudan University); Key Laboratory of Myopia, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shanghai, China

    Lingling Niu, Huamao Miao, Feng Zhao & Xingtao Zhou

  4. Shanghai Research Center of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Shanghai, China

    Lingling Niu, Huamao Miao, Feng Zhao & Xingtao Zhou

  5. Shuguang Hospital affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Feng Zhao

Authors
  1. Xiaojian He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lingling Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Huamao Miao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Feng Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xingtao Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Literature screening and selection was performed by XH and LN. XZ participated in the design of the study. LN drafted the manuscript. XH carried out the statistical analysis. HM and FZ prepare and review of the manuscript. XZ has given final approval of the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xingtao Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Eye and ENT Hospital Review Board of Fudan University. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients after the nature and possible consequences of the study were explained.

Consent for publication

All participants in this study signed written consent forms for the publication of their relevant clinical data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is 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

He, X., Niu, L., Miao, H. et al. Relative position of the central hole after EVO-ICL implantation for moderate to high myopia. BMC Ophthalmol 20, 305 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01569-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01569-9

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us