Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL?)

[dalbeath]

Has anyone had these fitted?
http://www.sathish-srinivasan.com/Impla ... s_ICL.html

Thinking about it for my CXL eye as piggy back lenses rubbing

[andytraill]

(N.B. Not a professional and I don't have these fitted)

With the caveat above, if you're on piggybacks I'd assume you have a fairly conical cornea. Which to my laymans mind would mean an implantable contact lens wouldn't be able to correct that. Also I was until recently thinking about getting one of these in my "good eye" having watched how they are fitted I'd really prefer not... (that includes the Artisans which are put in the front part of the eye).

[dalbeath]

Since CXL my cornea is pretty flat and with a soft lens on it's own I can drive, work and do most things. However, I jump horses at a reasonable level and the soft lens alone does not give me the quality of vision I need for this but a piggy back does. But the piggy back is rubbing and causing the surface of the cornea some damage so thinking about ICL instead. Idea being that the ICL should be enough for day to day stuff and I may need an additional soft lens when competing.

How did you watch them being fitted? Was it horrible?

[andytraill]

I watched it on youtube(search if you feel up to it).

(N.B. Next bit is just the product of my simple Simon internet searches, from a position of complete ignorance.)

There are some which are foldable which have smaller incisions which are a bit less scary but I'm personally pretty paranoid about my "good eye". That's why (like you) I was considering it because lens can be risky in their own ways. When I watched the video of an Artisan getting put in it freaked me out. I was considering Artisans because the lens in front of the iris, so sometimes visible but less risk of cell damage / cataract formation (in theory). They have to use a large cut to get it in and then attach it to the iris.

The Staar Visian you linked goes behind the iris through a smaller cut. However from my (simple Simon) internet searches these are FDA approved (that's a big deal obviously) but they do cause cell loss in the endothelial cell density (the cells at the back of the cornea more than what I've read the ones fitted in front do, see the second link below) and the risk of retinal detachment is higher (a small risk, but still). For me being as paranoid as I am about my good eye that put me off them (also a sort of "I've got dodgy corneas already do I really want to mess with it/them more?" purely emotive thought).

Of the ones I've seen to my (completely layman) view the AcrySof Cachet looks to be the least risky(smaller cuts, no stitches and not connected to the iris), but it doesn't have as much data, can't correct astigmatism and most significantly for me at least the corrections start at -6(to -16.5) which is much higher power than I need unfortunately.

An overview.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/implantable-lenses.htm

Some specific Cachet info.
http://www.aao.org/isrs/resources/outlook/10/03_10_feat.cfm