Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 8, 2025

Ye's Swing Technique for Small-incision Lenticule Extraction Surgery
Published on: June 27, 2025
Implantable collamer lens versus small incision lenticule extraction for high myopia correction: A systematic review
Kai Cao1, Jingshang Zhang1, Jinda Wang1
1Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Capital Medical University, No17, Hougou ally, Dongcheng district, Beijing, 100005, China.
Purpose:
To compare the efficacy, safety, predictability and visual quality between implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for high myopia correction in adults.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. A comprehensive literature search was done based on databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The efficacy index, safety index, changes in Snellen lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), predictability (difference between post-operative and attempted spherical equivalent error, SER), incidence of halos, and change in higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were compared. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and 95%CI was used to estimate categorical outcomes.
Results:
Five observational studies involving 555 eyes were included in this review. Studies' sample sizes (eyes) ranged from 76 to 197. Subjects' refraction ranged from -6 diopter (D) to -12D. Study duration of most researches were 6 months or 12 months. Compared to SMILE, ICL implantation showed better efficacy index (MD=0.09, 95%CI:0.01 to 0.16) and better safety index (MD=0.08, 95%CI: 0.00 to 0.16). Compared with SMILE, more ICL-treated eyes gained one or more Snellen lines of CDVA (RR=1.54, 95%CI:1.28 to 1.86), more gained two or more lines (RR=2.09, 95%CI:1.40 to 3.13), less lost one or more lines (RR=0.17, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.63). There was no difference in predictability between two treatments, RRs of predictability of within ±0.5D and ±1D were 1.13 (95%CI: 0.94 to 1.36) and 1.00 (95%CI: 0.98 to 1.02). Compared with SMILE, ICL implantation came with a higher risk of halos [RR=1.79, 95%CI: 1.48 to 2.16] and less increase in total HOAs (MD=-0.23, 95%CI: -0.42 to -0.03).
Conclusion:
Compared with SMILE, ICL implantation showed a higher risk of halos, but equal performance on SER control, and better performance on efficacy index, safety index, CDVA improvement and HOAs control. Overall, ICL implantation might be a better choice for high myopia correction in adults.
More Related Videos
05:14Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
05:46Author Spotlight: Advancements in Refractive Surgical Correction for Presbyopia and Exploring Postoperative Visual Acuity
Published on: September 20, 2024