Intrastromal corneal ring segments for low myopia: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology

This document describes intrastromal corneal ring segments (Intacs) inserts technology and examines the evidence to answer the key question about whether the treatment is safe and effective in correcting low myopia. A literature search that was conducted in September 2000 retrieved 13 relevant citations, and the reference lists of these articles were consulted for additional citations. Panel members reviewed this information and articles were rated according to the strength of evidence. Prospective multicenter phase II and III clinical trials (Level II evidence rating) of Intacs inserts for myopia of −1.00 to −3.00 diopters (D), with a maximum of +1.00 D of astigmatism, enrolled a total of 452 subjects, with a total of 454 surgical attempts. The results from phase II and phase III were pooled for much of the analysis. At 1 year, 97% of patients who completed follow-up had 20/40 or better uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA). Seventy-four percent of patients had 20/20 or better UCVA. Ninety-two percent of eyes were within ±1 D of intended refractive correction, and 69% were within 0.5 D of intended refractive correction. At 3 months, 90% of patients had less than 1.0 D of change from the previous examination performed at 1 month. The ocular complication rate, which was defined as clinically significant events but not resulting in permanent sequelae, was 11% at 12 months. The adverse event rate was 1.1%, defined as a serious event if untreated. Nearly 9% of patients requested to have their inserts removed and a total of 3.8% of patients required a secondary surgical intervention. To date, evidence suggests that low myopia (−1 to −3 D) in a well-defined group of patients who have a stable manifest refraction and less than +1.0 D of astigmatism can be treated with Intacs inserts with a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Additional clinical research is needed to determine the long-term effectiveness of treatment and the comparative safety, effectiveness, and costs with other treatment modalities, including laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).