Figure 2
Two-stage group. (A) Distribution of UDVA postoperatively compared to CDVA preoperatively. All eyes in both groups achieved a UDVA of 20/25 or better, and 94% in the one-stage group achieved 20/20 or better, in the two-stage group 95%. The efficacy indices were comparable one day postoperative (one-stage 1.0 ± 0.3 vs. two-stage 1.0 ± 0.2, p = 0.32) and at the last follow up (one-stage 1.1 ± 0.2 vs. two-stage 1.2 ± 0.2, p = 0.06. (B) Change in lines of CDVA and UDVA. No eye in both groups lost 2 or more lines. In the one-stage group 5 eyes (5%) lost one line, in the two-stage group 6 eyes (8%), p = 0.54. The safety index at the last follow up was not significant (one-stage 1.2 ± 0.2 vs. two-stage 1.2 ± 0.2, p = 0.6). (C) Attempted vs. achieved spherical equivalent refraction. By definition of spherical equivalent beyond 1.0 D from target refraction, no eye in either group was under- or overcorrected. (D) Distribution of manifest spherical equivalent refraction after retreatment. The number of eyes within 0.5 and 1.0 D from target refraction increased was 89% and 99% in the one-stage group, 86% and 99% in the two-stage group. There was a significant difference in the final target accuracy (p = 0.004). (E) Distribution of refractive astigmatism before and after retreatment. After one-stage ICL implantation, the number of eyes with astigmatism ≤ 0.5 and ≤ 1.0 D increased from 31 to 73%, and from to 44% to 97%. After two-stage ICL implantation, the number of eyes with astigmatism ≤ 0.5 and ≤ 1.0 D increased from 20 to 67%, and from to 36% to 96%. There was no significant difference in the final postoperative astigmatism (p = 0.09). (F) Refractive stability after enhancement. In both groups, MRSE was comparable one day postoperative (one-stage 0.20 ± 0.70 D vs. two-stage 0.20 ± 0.40 D, p = 0.48).
