Spherical implantable collamer lens with postoperative adjunctive LASIK in the treatment of high compound hyperopic astigmatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess refractive and visual outcomes of a spherical Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) followed by planned postoperative adjunctive laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in the treatment of high compound hyperopic astigmatism. In this prospective, multi-center, multi-surgeon, single-arm trial, eyes with ≥ 3.50 D hyperopia and ≥ 2.00 D of astigmatism underwent surgery receiving a spherical Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) followed by a planned adjunctive LASIK postoperatively. Outcomes measures included postoperative uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, spherical (SEQ) and defocus equivalent (DEQ), efficacy index, safety index, and astigmatism vector analyses. 48 eyes had a mean sphere of 6.18 ± 1.35 D and mean cylinder of 2.69 ± 0.89 D preoperatively. After ICL and LASIK, 94% of eyes achieved a UDVA within 1 line of preoperative CDVA. Efficacy and safety indices were 0.94 ± 0.13 and 1.00 ± 0.13, respectively. We obtained near-to-emmetropia SEQ postoperatively (mean − 0.03 ± 0.43D), and the scatterplot of attempted versus achieved refractive correction revealed a predictable procedure (R 2 = 0.89). 93.8% and 100% of eyes achieved target SEQ within 0.75 and 1.00 D. 87.5% and 100% of eyes were within 0.50 and 0.75 D of intended plano cylinder. Spherical ICL with postoperative adjunctive LASIK was safe with good early visual and refractive outcomes. The combined modality is a promising approach to treating high compound hyperopic astigmatism where toric hyperopic ICL is not available. This trial was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial registration number NCT06742541.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".