The Implantable Collamer Lens with a central port: review of the literature

Figures & data

Table 1 Measures of effectiveness include the efficacy index, uncorrected visual acuity (expressed as logMAR), and the accuracy of refractive correction expressed as percentages within 0.5 and 1.0 D of target

References	n eyes	N patients	Follow-up months	Efficacy index	Mean logMAR UDVA	±0.50 D	±1.0 D
Shimizu et al 2012^Citation48	20	20	6	1.03±0.30	−0.20±0.12	95.0%	100.0%
Alfonso et al 2013^Citation25	138	70	6	1.00	0.009±0.062	98.5%	100.0%
Higueras-Esteban et al 2013^Citation29	18	10	3	NR	−0.07±0.11	100.0%	100.0%
Huseynova et al 2014^Citation23	44	44	3	1.03	0.13±0.08 (0.10–0.30)	NR	NR
Lisa et al 2015^Citation24	147	80	12	1.00	0.028±0.055	93.9%	100.0%
Fernández-Vigo et al 2016^Citation49	50	25	3	NR	0.05±0.11	NR	NR
Liu et al 2016^Citation43	82	42	5	1.27	−0.03±0.08	NR	NR
Shimizu et al 2016^Citation22	32	32	60	NR	−0.17±0.14 (0.15–0.30)	88.0%	96.0%
Cao et al 2016^Citation50	63	32	6	1.11±0.19	0.118±0.096	NR	NR
Cao et al 2016^Citation51	78	39	6	NR	0.136±0.104 (0.000–0.301)	NR	NR
Iijima et al 2016^Citation45	29	29	3	NR	0.04±0.21 (0.52–0.30)	NR	NR
Park et al 2017^Citation52 (central port within 1, 2, or 3 port diameters of pupil center)	46	NR	3	NR	−0.01±0.06	NR	NR
	42	NR	3	NR	−0.04±0.07	NR	NR
	6	NR	3	NR	−0.03±0.08	NR	NR
Tian et al 2017^Citation44	18	18	1	NR	−0.02	NR	NR
Kamiya et al 2017^Citation21 (myopia <6, ≥6 D)	57	57	12	NR	−0.17±0.14 (−0.30–0.30)	93.0%	98.0%
	294	294	12	NR	−0.16±0.09 (−0.30–0.15)	94.0%	99.0%
Garcia-de La Rosa et al 2018^Citation53	76	42	12	NR	0.12±0.12	NR	NR
Hyun et al 2017^Citation54	24	24	8	1.09	0.01±0.07 (−0.10–0.15)	NR	NR
Fernández-Vigo et al 2017^Citation31	54	27	24	NR	0.02±0.10 (0.1–0.2)	NR	NR
Ganesh et al 2017^Citation35	30	30	12	1.12	−0.022±0.021	NR	NR
Pjano et al 2017^Citation34	28	16	12	1.20	0.13	NR	NR
Liu et al 2018^Citation55	40	22	3	NR	−0.04±0.05	NR	NR
Zhao et al 2018^Citation56	37	19	18	0.95	0.03±0.05	NR	NR
Lee et al 2018^Citation26	52	52	6	1.35±0.19	NR	88.0%	100.0%
Miao et al 2018^Citation57	67	38	3	1.14±0.23	−0.01±0.09	72.0%	95.0%
Takahashi et al 2018^Citation58	42	21	6	NR	−0.03±0.20	100.0%	100.0%
Yan et al 2018^Citation20	61	32	24	1.03±0.23	0.08	79.0%	98.0%
Kojima et al 2018 (V4c, V5)^Citation67	23	23	6	1.16±0.22	−0.23±0.09	94.7%	100.0%
	23	23	6	1.03±0.23	−0.19±0.12	84.2%	100.0%
Fernández-Vega-Cueto et al 2018^Citation36	184	92	36	0.90	NR	74.5%	91.8%
Total number of eyes reported			Weighted averages
1,905			12.5	1.04	−0.02	90.8%	98.7%

Abbreviations: NR, not reported; UDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity.

Table 2 Measures of safety include the safety index, the percentage of central corneal endothelial cell loss, and the rates of incidence for asymptomatic anterior subcapsular (ASC) opacity, visual significant cataract, pupillary block, pigment dispersion, and secondary surgical intervention

References	n eyes	N patients	Follow-up months	Safety index	Endothelial cell loss	ASC opacity	Cataract	Pupillary block	Pigment dispersion	Secondary surgical intervention
Shimizu et al 2012^Citation48	20	20	6	1.13±0.24	−2.8%	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Shimizu et al 2012^Citation38	29	29	3	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Alfonso et al 2013^Citation25	138	70	6	1.01	−8.5%	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Gonzalez-Lopez et al 2013^Citation28	100	56	1	1.16±0.24	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	NR	0.0%
Higueras-Esteban et al 2013^Citation29	18	10	3	NR	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	NR	NR
Huseynova et al 2014^Citation23	44	44	3	1.14	+1.1%	NR	NR	0.0%	NR	NR
Kamiya et al 2015^Citation59	23	23	12	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	NR
Alfonso et al 2015^Citation60	781	NR	6	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	NR	NR	NR
Lisa et al 2015^Citation24	147	80	12	1.04	−1.7%	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Karandikar et al 2015^Citation30	34	NR	12	1.15	−7.1%	2.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	5.9%
Brar et al 2015^Citation32	342	NR	60	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	NR	NR	0.0%
Fernández-Vigo et al 2016^Citation49	50	25	3	NR	−6.8%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	NR	NR
Liu et al 2016^Citation43	82	42	5	1.28	−4.83%	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Shimizu et al 2016^Citation22	32	32	60	NR	−0.5%±5.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Eissa et al 2016^Citation61	54	27	18	NR	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	NR	NR
Ganesh et al 2016^Citation35	40	20	0.07	NR	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	NR	NR
Bhandari et al 2015^Citation33	10	5	9	1.14	−6.1%	3.1%	0.0%	0.0%	NR	16.7%a
Cao et al 2016^Citation50	63	32	6	1.42±0.34	−2.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Cao et al 2016^Citation51	78	39	6	NR	−2.0%	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Iijima et al 2016^Citation45	29	29	3	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Senthil et al 2016^Citation27	195	107	8	NR	NR	0.5%	0.0%	0.5%	0.0%	0.5%
Chen et al 2016^Citation62	22	22	6	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Rodríguez-Una et al 2017^Citation63	763	384	7	NR	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Kamiya et al 2017^Citation21 (myopia <6, ≥6 D)	57	57	12	NR	−0.1%±9.7%	NR	NR	NR	NR	0.9%
	294	294	12		−0.1%±10.0%
Garcia-de La Rosa et al 2018^Citation53	76	42	12	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	0.0%
Hyun et al 2017^Citation54	24	24	8	1.2	−3.7%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Fernández-Vigo et al 2017^Citation31	54	27	24	NR	−5.9%	1.9%	0.0%	NR	NR	NR
Ganesh et al 2017^Citation35	30	30	12	1.24	−9.0%	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	10.0%
Goukon et al 2017^Citation64	34	34	24	NR	−0.3%	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Nam et al 2017^Citation65	43	43	15	NR	6.6%	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	NR
Pjano et al 2017^Citation34	28	16	12	1.25	−5.5%	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	7.2%
Titiyal et al 2017^Citation66	40	22	1	NR	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Zhao et al 2018^Citation56	37	19	18	1.11	−0.7%	NR	NR	0.0%	NR	NR
Lee et al 2018^Citation26	52	52	6	1.38±0.22	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Takahashi et al 2018^Citation58	42	21	6	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Yan et al 2018^Citation20	61	32	24	1.24±0.26	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Kojima et al 2018 (V4c, V5)^Citation67	23	23	6	1.21±0.20	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	23	23	6	1.19±0.2	NR	NR	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Fernández-Vega-Cueto et al 2018^Citation36	184	92	36	1.03	−2.9%	NR	NR	NR	NR	2.2%
Total number of eyes reported			Weighted averages			Overall incidence
4,196			14.0	1.15	−2.6%	0.49%	0.00%	0.04%	0.0%	0.47%

Note:

a Bhandari et al expressed the incidence of secondary surgical intervention as a percentage of toric implants only.

Abbreviation: NR, not reported.

Table 3 An important measure of safety is the lines of best-corrected visual acuity lost or gained at the study endpoint compared to baseline

References	−3 or more	−2	−1	−0.5	No change	+1	+2	+3 or more
Shimizu et al 2012^Citation48	0	0	1	NR	12	5	2	0
Alfonso et al 2013^Citation25	0	0	0	NR	113	21	4	0
Gonzalez-Lopez et al 2013^Citation28	0	0	0	3	97
Lisa et al 2015^Citation24	0	0	0	NR	116	21	5	5
Liu et al 2016^Citation43	0	0	0	NR	30	26	18	8
Shimizu et al 2016^Citation22	0	0	4	NR	9	11	2	0
Bhandari et al 2015^Citation33	0				10
Cao et al 2016^Citation50	0						63
Chen et al 2016^Citation62	0		NR
Kamiya et al 2017^Citation21 (myopia <6, ≥6 D)	0	0	8	NR	36	13	0	0
	0	1	26	NR	142	112	13	0
Garcia-de La Rosa et al 2018^Citation53	0	1	4	NR	37	19	12	3
Ganesh et al 2017^Citation35	0				30
Pjano et al 2017^Citation34	0	1	0	NR	11	8	5	3
Lee et al 2018^Citation26	0				7	45
Takahashi et al 2018^Citation58	0	0	5	NR	23	12	2	0
Yan et al 2018^Citation20	0	0	1	NR	14	33	10	3
Fernández-Vega-Cueto et al 2018^Citation36	0	0	11	NR	145	16	9	3
Total number of eyes reported	Numbers of eyes that lost or gained lines
1,410	0	3	57	3	834	343	145	25
Percentage of eyes that lost or gained lines	0.0%	0.2%	4.0%	0.2%	59.1%	24.3%	10.3%	1.8%

Abbreviation: NR, not reported.

ShimizuKKamiyaKIgarashiAShirataniTEarly clinical outcomes of implantation of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central hole (Hole ICL) for moderate to high myopiaBr J Ophthalmol201296340941221733922

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AlfonsoJFLisaCFernández-Vega CuetoLBelda-SalmerónLMadrid-CostaDMontés-MicóRClinical outcomes after implantation of a posterior chamber collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lens with a central hole for myopic correctionJ Cataract Refract Surg201339691592123688878

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Higueras-EstebanAOrtiz-GomarizAGutiérrez-OrtegaRIntraocular pressure after implantation of the Visian Implantable Collamer Lens with CentraFLOW without iridotomyAm J Ophthalmol2013156480080523876870

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HuseynovaTOzakiSIshizukaTMitaMTomitaMComparative study of 2 types of implantable collamer lenses, 1 with and 1 without a central artificial holeAm J Ophthalmol201415761136114324503407

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LisaCNaveirasMAlfonso-BartolozziBBelda-SalmerónLMontés-MicóRAlfonsoJFPosterior chamber collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lens with a central hole to correct myopia: one-year follow-upJ Cataract Refract Surg20154161153115926189376

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fernández-VigoJIMacarro-MerinoAFernández-VigoCEffects of implantable collamer lens V4c placement on iridocorneal angle measurements by Fourier-domain optical coherence tomographyAm J Ophthalmol2016162435226582312

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LiuTLinghuSPanLShiREffects of V4c-ICL implantation on myopic patients’ vision-related daily activitiesJ Ophthalmol20162016571793227965890

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ShimizuKKamiyaKIgarashiAKobashiHLong-term comparison of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with and without a central hole (Hole ICL and Conventional ICL) implantation for moderate to high myopia and myopic astigmatism: consort-compliant articleMedicine20169514e327027057883

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

CaoXWuWWangYXieCTongJShenYPosterior chamber collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lens with a central hole for moderate-to-high myopia: first experience in ChinaMedicine20169536e464127603356

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

CaoXWuWWangYXieCShenYComparison over time of vault in Chinese eyes receiving implantable contact lenses with or without a central holeAm J Ophthalmol201617211111727659350

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

IijimaAShimizuKYamagishiMKobashiHIgarashiAKamiyaKAssessment of subjective intraocular forward scattering and quality of vision after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central hole (Hole ICL) implantationActa Ophthalmol2016948e716e72027288153

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ParkMJJeonHMLeeKHHanSYComparison of postoperative optical quality according to the degree of decentering of V4c implantable collamer lensInt J Ophthalmol201710461962328503437

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

TianYJiangHBJiangJWenDXiaXBSongWTComparison of implantable collamer lens visian ICL V4 and ICL V4c for high myopia: a cohort studyMedicine20179625e729428640145

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KamiyaKShimizuKIgarashiAPosterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation: comparative, multicentre study in 351 eyes with low-to-moderate or high myopiaBr J Ophthalmol2018102217718128611132

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Garcia-de La RosaGOlivo-PayneASerna-OjedaJCAnterior segment optical coherence tomography angle and vault analysis after toric and non-toric implantable collamer lens V4c implantation in patients with high myopiaBr J Ophthalmol2018102454454828729370

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HyunJLimDHEoDRHwangSChungESChungTYDrEA comparison of visual outcome and rotational stability of two types of toric implantable collamer lenses (TICL): V4 versus V4cPLoS One2017128e018333528846701

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fernández-VigoJIMacarro-MerinoAFernández-VigoCImpacts of implantable collamer lens V4c placement on angle measurements made by optical coherence tomography: two-year follow-upAm J Ophthalmol2017181374528662940

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GaneshSBrarSPawarAMatched population comparison of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between 3 modalities for the correction of low to moderate myopic astigmatismClin Ophthalmol2017111253126328740361

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PjanoMAPidroABiscevicAGrisevicSPandzicBCerovicVRefractive outcomes of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatismMed Arch2017712939628790537

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

LiuHTZhouZLuoWQComparison of optical quality after implantable collamer lens implantation and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusisInt J Ophthalmol201811465666129675387

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ZhaoJLuoDSunYImplanting a posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens in highly myopic eyes with peripheral primary iris and ciliary body cystsEur J Ophthalmol20181112067211876644

 Google Scholar

LeeHKangDSYChoiJYRotational stability and visual outcomes of V4c toric phakic intraocular lensesJ Refract Surg201834748949630001453

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MiaoHChenXTianMChenYWangXZhouXRefractive outcomes and optical quality after implantation of posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lens with a central hole (ICL V4c)BMC Ophthalmol201818114129898694

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

TakahashiMKamiyaKShojiNKatoSIgarashiAShimizuKIntentional undercorrection by implantation of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central hole (Hole ICL) for early presbyopiaBiomed Res Int2018201815

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

YanZMiaoHZhaoFTwo-year outcomes of visian implantable collamer lens with a central hole for correcting high myopiaJ Ophthalmol2018201819

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KojimaTKitazawaYNakamuraTProspective randomized multicenter comparison of the clinical outcomes of V4c and V5 implantable collamer lenses: a contralateral eye studyJ Ophthalmol20182018762382930254757

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fernández-Vega-CuetoLLisaCEsteve-TaboadaJJMontés-MicóRAlfonsoJFImplantable collamer lens with central hole: 3-year follow-upClin Ophthalmol2018122015202930349185

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ShimizuKKamiyaKIgarashiAShirataniTIntraindividual comparison of visual performance after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with and without a central hole implantation for moderate to high myopiaAm J Ophthalmol2012154348649422818905

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gonzalez-LopezFBilbao-CalabuigRMompeanBIntraocular pressure during the early postoperative period after 100 consecutive implantations of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses with a central holeJ Cataract Refract Surg201339121859186324427793

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KamiyaKShimizuKAndoWIgarashiAIijimaKKohAComparison of vault after implantation of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with and without a central holeJ Cataract Refract Surg2015411677225532635

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AlfonsoJFLisaCFernández-VegaLAlmanzarDPérez-VivesCMontés-MicóRPrevalence of cataract after collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lens implantation for myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatismJ Cataract Refract Surg201541480080525840304

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KarandikarSBhandariVReddyJOutcomes of implantable collamer lens V4 and V4c for correction of high myopia – a case seriesNepal J Ophthalmol201571416417227363962

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

BrarSGanereshSPandeyRIncidence & factors responsible for Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) explantation & outcomes of further management – 5 year retrospective studyEC Ophthalmology201531231239

 Google Scholar

EissaSASadekSHEl-DeebMWAnterior chamber angle evaluation following phakic posterior chamber collamer lens with centraFLOW and its correlation with ICL vault and intraocular pressureJ Ophthalmol20162016138328928053776

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BhandariVKarandikarSReddyJKRelekarKImplantable collamer lens V4b and V4c for correction of high myopiaJ Curr Ophthalmol2015273–4768127239582

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

SenthilSChoudhariNSVaddavalliPKMurthySReddyJCGarudadriCSEtiology and management of raised intraocular pressure following posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation in myopic eyesPLoS One20161111e016546927855172

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ChenHNiuGFanYMaJComparison of intraocular pressure and-vault after implantation of implantable collamer lens with and without a central holeBMC Ophthalmol201616120327852246

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rodríguez-UnaIRodríguez-CalvoPPFernández-Vega CuetoLLisaCFernández-Vega CuetoAAlfonsoJFIntraocular pressure after implantation of a phakic collamer intraocular lens with a central holeJ Refract Surg201733424424928407164

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GoukonHKamiyaKShimizuKIgarashiAComparison of corneal endothelial cell density and morphology after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation with and without a central holeBr J Ophthalmol2017101111461146528292776

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

NamSWLimDHHyunJChungESChungTYBuffering zone of implantable collamer lens sizing in V4cBMC Ophthalmol201717126029273016

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

TitiyalJSKaurMSahuSSharmaNSinhaRReal-time assessment of intraoperative vaulting in implantable collamer lens and correlation with postoperative vaultingEur J Ophthalmol2017271212527405290

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar