Toric versus Standard Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation for Low Myopic Astigmatism: A 12-Month Retrospective Study

Evidence database / Studies / he-2026-toric-standard-icl-low-astigmatism

—enrolled patients*

—enrolled eyes*

2structured arms

365maximum standardized days follow-up

* Descriptive sum of reported arm counts. “≥” indicates that one or more arm counts were not reported; missing values are not treated as zero.

Study arm

Toric ICL

ICL

Population

Patients: Not reported
Eyes: Not reported
Bilateral treatment: Not reported
Age range: Not reported
Sphere range: Not reported
Cylinder range: Not reported
Spherical equivalent: Not reported
Corneal thickness: Not reported

Eligibility definition

Inclusion
Myopia with low astigmatism of 0.75–1.00 D; toric ICL implantation.

Exclusion
Not structured

Reported outcomes by follow-up

Outcome	Follow-up	Follow-up sample	Result	Reported fraction	Provenance
Mean uncorrected distance acuity efficacy	12 months	—	-0.080 logMAR	Not reported	VERIFIED Source · Abstract
Mean residual refractive cylinder refractive	12 months	—	-0.16 D	Not reported	VERIFIED Source · Abstract

Complications

No structured complication observations are available for this arm. This means “not reported in this dataset,” not zero complications.

Study arm

Standard ICL

ICL

Population

Patients: Not reported
Eyes: Not reported
Bilateral treatment: Not reported
Age range: Not reported
Sphere range: Not reported
Cylinder range: Not reported
Spherical equivalent: Not reported
Corneal thickness: Not reported

Eligibility definition

Inclusion
Myopia with low astigmatism of 0.75–1.00 D; standard ICL implantation.

Exclusion
Not structured

Reported outcomes by follow-up

Outcome	Follow-up	Follow-up sample	Result	Reported fraction	Provenance
Mean uncorrected distance acuity efficacy	12 months	—	-0.030 logMAR	Not reported	VERIFIED Source · Abstract
Mean residual refractive cylinder refractive	12 months	—	-0.33 D	Not reported	VERIFIED Source · Abstract

Complications

No structured complication observations are available for this arm. This means “not reported in this dataset,” not zero complications.

Study design

Single-center retrospective, nonconsecutive, nonrandomized comparison, assessed at three and twelve months.

Country: China
Publication-reported places: Dongguan Guangming Ophthalmic Hospital, Dongguan, Guangdong, China
Multicenter: No
Prospective: No
Randomized: No
Source type: RETROSPECTIVE
Regulator: Not reported

Place metadata may refer to a treatment site, institution or author affiliation. Confirm its role in the linked publication.

Limitations and notes

Abstract-reviewed comparison of 124 eyes from 124 patients. Per-arm enrollment and endpoint counts are not specified in the abstract and remain null. Selection bias limits comparisons; objective visual-quality measures did not differ significantly between groups.

Missing fields are not interpreted as negative findings. Arm counts may not be additive in all study designs.

Study evidence level
A simple, non-GRADE hierarchy based on design: randomized and large regulatory trials are high; prospective cohorts moderate; retrospective observational studies low. Manual review can override this label.