Angle-supported phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of myopia: Three-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate patient safety and refractive outcomes in eyes with an angle-supported phakic intraocular lens (pIOL), and to assess the correlation between rotation and corneal endothelial cell damage. SETTING: Gimbel Eye Centres, Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: This study included patients with moderate to high myopia (range -6.50 to -19.50 diopters [D]) who received the Acrysof Cachet pIOL. Outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), endothelial cell density (ECD), and IOL rotation. RESULTS: This study evaluated 119 eyes of 61 patients. The mean ECD decrease from preoperative measurements was 3.11% (n = 46), with a mean IOL rotation of 10.6 degrees (n = 35) at the 3-year postoperative visit. Of the 49 eyes at the 3-year visit measured for UDVA, 98.0% were 20/40 or better and 77.6% were 20/20 or better. The MRSE improved from a preoperative mean of -9.26 diopters (D) ± 2.43 (SD) (range -19.50 to -5.63 D) to -0.33 ± 0.61 D (range -3.12 to +0.71 D) at the 3-year visit. The residual refractive error was within ±0.50 D of the target refraction for 78.4% and within ±1.00 D for 92.2% of the 51 eyes. The study included one bilateral pIOL removal due to endothelial cell loss, one case of synechia, and one case of subtle pupil ovalization. CONCLUSIONS: No correlation between IOL rotation and ECD decrease was found (R(2) = 0.0143); the pIOL provided promising refractive outcomes and acceptable safety in patients with moderate to high myopia. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".