Immediate or Delayed Sequential Bilateral ICL Surgery: a Survey of Chinese Ophthalmologists
Yinjie Jiang1,2,3, Xun Chen1,2,3, Mingrui Cheng1,2,3
1Fudan University, Eye Ear Nose and Throat Hospital, No. 19 BaoQing Road, XuHui District, Shanghai, 200031, China.
Introduction:
In China, the demand for implantable collamer lens (ICL) surgery is booming. Immediate sequential bilateral ICL surgery (ISBICLS) benefits patients and clinics, but it remains controversial and lacks standardization. We aim to investigate the prevalence of, factors for, and surgeon attitudes toward ISBICLS.
Methods:
In this cross-sectional survey study, an electronic questionnaire about the practice and attitudes toward performing ISBICLS or delayed sequential bilateral ICL surgery (DSBICLS) was distributed to 792 qualified ICL surgeons in Mainland China, between 4 April and 22 April 2022.
Results:
A total of 531 surgeons (66.79%) from 30 provinces in Mainland China responded. Among them, 374 (67.23%) were currently performing ISBICLS. Fifty-two percent (277) of surgeons reported performing ISBICLS more than 50% of the time, while 85.05% of surgeons chose to perform the second eye surgery 1 day after the first eye surgery. Seventy percent (248) of surgeons performing ISBICLS chose to perform the second eye surgery less than 30 min after the first eye surgery. Surgeons who started ICL surgery earlier (before 2010, OR = 2.772, 95% CI = 1.290-5.957, P = 0.009; 2011-2013, OR = 2.479, 95% CI = 1.060-5.800, P = 0.036), completed one-eye ICL surgery faster (< 3 min, OR = 3.936, 95% CI = 1.505-10.293, P = 0.005) and modified the second eye ICL selection less frequently (1-25%, OR = 0.203, 95% CI = 0.054-0.771, P = 0.019; 26-50%, OR = 0.173, 95% CI = 0.041-0.726, P = 0.017; 51-75%, OR = 0.299, 95% CI = 0.041-0.726, P = 0.123; 76-100%, OR = 0.163, 95% CI = 0.039-0.688, P = 0.014) tended to perform ISBICLS. No significant association was found among clinical settings, preoperative measurement devices, and hospital policies with performing ISBICLS. Regarding their attitudes toward ISBICLS, 54.63% preferred ISBICLS and 45.37% preferred DSBICLS. The main supporting reasons were patient convenience (98.64%), faster vision rehabilitation (73.56%), and improved perioperative compliance (73.22%). The concerns regarding ISBICLS included the risk of endophthalmitis (62.22%), lack of recommendation in expert consensus (61.67%), and decreased vault predictability (60.93%). The most common desires for further adoption were expert consensus on surgical criteria and patient indicators for ISBICLS (82.3%).
Conclusions:
ISBICLS has been gradually adopted in Mainland China, but has not been widely accepted as a routine procedure. Surgeons' experience and skills mainly influence whether ISBICLS is performed. Further research is needed to explore standardized protocols to prevent endophthalmitis, the appropriate time interval of two eye surgery, and requisitions for surgeon skills.
