Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2026
Synthesis of Soft Polysiloxane-urea Elastomers for Intraocular Lens Application
Published on: March 8, 2019
Implantable phakic contact lens: systematic review.
Willem Van Hoe1, Karolien Termote, Isabelle Saelens
1From the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Van Hoe, Saelens, Delbeke); Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Brussels, Brussels, Belgium (Termote); Department of Neurosciences, Research Group Ophthalmology, Biomedical Sciences Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Saelens, Delbeke).
The Implantable Phakic Contact Lens (IPCL) shows promising visual outcomes and safety, offering a cost-effective alternative to the Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL). Further research is needed for definitive conclusions on its efficacy and repeatability.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Biomedical Engineering
- Vision Science
Background:
- Posterior-chamber phakic intra-ocular lenses (pIOLs) are used for refractive error correction.
- The Implantable Phakic Contact Lens (IPCL) is a newer pIOL option compared to the established Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL).
- The diffractive IPCL is unique in offering multifocal correction for presbyopia within the posterior chamber.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the visual outcomes and safety profile of the Implantable Phakic Contact Lens (IPCL).
- To provide comparative data between the IPCL and the Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL).
- To assess the potential of the diffractive IPCL for presbyopia correction.
Main Methods:
- A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar.
- Data from international conference lectures were also screened for inclusion.
- Original studies were prioritized, and prospective registration was performed via PROSPERO (ID 546823).
Main Results:
- The review included 28 articles and two lectures, indicating reliable visual outcomes for IPCL with an efficacy index of 1.06.
- While post-operative UDVA for IPCL (0.23 logMAR) was worse than ICL (-0.01 logMAR), this was linked to suboptimal pre-operative CDVA (0.29 logMAR).
- The diffractive IPCL demonstrated good post-operative UDVA (0.06 logMAR) and UNVA (0.04 logMAR) in presbyopic patients with minimal side effects. Safety index was 1.23, with cataract formation in 0.46% and endothelial cell loss of 2.3% at 12 months, comparable to ICL.
Conclusions:
- The IPCL presents as a promising pIOL with generally good reported outcomes.
- Interpretation of monofocal IPCL results is limited by pre-operative visual acuity, impacting direct comparison with the ICL.
- Further research is essential to establish definitive conclusions on the safety, efficacy, and repeatability of both monofocal and diffractive IPCLs.
