Evidence Hub

Three Year Results from the United States FDA Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study of the EVO/EVO+ Implantable Collamer Lens

Parkhurst G, Brinton JP, Faulkner A, Moshirfar M, Kugler LJ, Stahl JE, Zavodni Z, Thompson VM et al.

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025

327 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Continued safety and effectiveness of collamer EVO ICL posterior chamber phakic lenses with a central port design for the correction of myopia with or without astigmatism.

Patients and methods: Subjects aged 21 to 45 years with moderate to high myopia and astigmatism up to 4.00 D underwent EVO or EVO+ Sphere or Toric ICL (collectively referred to as EVO ICL) surgery. Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), manifest refraction, intraocular pressure (IOP), endothelial cell density (ECD), and adverse events were assessed over 3 years.

Results: This prospective multicenter study included 629 eyes (327 subjects), with a mean age of 35.6 ± 5.1 years. Mean spherical equivalent (SE) was -7.62 ± 2.75 D (range: -3.00 to -15.62 D) preoperatively, and -0.12 ± 0.30 D at 3 years with 90.7% of eyes within ± 0.50 D and 99.0% within ±1.00 D of target. Mean postoperative UDVA and CDVA were -0.053 ± 0.12 logMAR and -0.13 ± 0.08 logMAR, respectively. Additionally, 48.9% of eyes gained 1 or more lines of CDVA. Efficacy and safety indices were 1.07 and 1.25, respectively. Two eyes (0.32%) underwent lens exchange for high vault; neither of these demonstrated increased IOP. One eye (0.16%) developed an anterior subcapsular cataract (ASC) at 2 years. No eyes experienced pupillary block requiring peripheral iridotomy or iridectomy (PI), elevated IOP due to angle narrowing, or pigment dispersion. Mean ECD decreased by 3.0% from baseline at 1 year and by 6.7% at 3…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 327 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free