Angle-supported phakic intraocular lens for correction of moderate to high myopia: Three-year interim results in international multicenter studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an angle-supported phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) for correction of moderate to high myopia. SETTING: Ophthalmology centers in the United States, Canada, and the European Union. DESIGN: Cohort study. METHODS: This study comprised patients with moderate to high myopia (range -6.00 to -16.50 diopters [D]) who had implantation of the AcrySof Cachet pIOL. Outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), predictability, stability of the manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), adverse events, and endothelial cell density (ECD). RESULTS: Pooled interim data from 360 patients assessed for up to 3 years postoperatively are presented. Of the 104 patients who reached the 3-year visit, the UDVA was 20/40 or better in 101 (97.1%) and 20/20 or better in 48 (46.2%). The CDVA was 20/32 or better in 103 (99.0%) of the 104 patients and 20/20 or better in 84 patients (80.8%). The mean MRSE was -0.24 D ± 0.55 (SD) (range -2.00 to 1.63 D). The residual refractive error was within ±0.50 D of target in 82 patients (78.8%) and within ±1.00 D in 95 patients (91.3%). The annualized percentage loss in central ECD and peripheral ECD from 6 months to 3 years was 0.41% and 1.11%, respectively. No pupil ovalization, pupillary block, or retinal detachment was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year findings from pooled global studies showed that the angle-supported pIOL provided favorable refractive correction and predictability and acceptable safety in patients with moderate to high myopia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".