Introduction
The Implantable Collamer® Lens was developed to provide patients a lens-based option for refractive vision correction.
STAAR ICLs have a 30-year history, beginning with the Visian® ICL, which was first implanted in 1993 and approved by the FDA in 2005. The EVO ICL™, which features CentraFlow® technology (a central port to allow the circulation of aqueous humor), was introduced outside the US in 2011 and approved by the FDA in 2022.
This evolution in technology eliminated the need for a preoperative peripheral iridotomy and has allowed for a safe and simple procedure. The EVO ICL’s FDA trial results at 6 months showed a 0% incidence of visually significant anterior subcapsular cataract, angle closure, or pupillary block,1 allowing for more tolerance in vault variance and giving surgeons more confidence in the technology. The EVO ICL is made with the company’s proprietary, biocompatible Collamer® material, which is bonded with UV-absorbing chromophore into a poly-HEMA-based copolymer to offer UV protection. The material also minimizes inflammation, flare, and cellular reaction.
We’re seeing a shift in the refractive market from laser-based to lens-based procedures. As the refractive laser market declines, we anticipate double-digit growth with the EVO ICL, giving practices a new solution to engage patients. EVO provides some of the highest rates of patient satisfaction and has proven to be a safe, stable, and upgradeable alternative option for vision correction. Furthermore, EVO ICL is reversible, preserves the cornea, and does not cause or worsen dry eye.
At the 2024 AECOS meeting in Deer Valley, a panel of refractive surgeons who are growing their practices with the EVO ICL convened to discuss their clinical and business strategies. Here, they share their reasons for adopting this technology, how it has changed their practices, and how they’re using EVO lower down the diopter curve. They also provide some excellent tips for explaining EVO ICL to patients who are more familiar with corneal-based refractive surgery.
—Scott Barnes, MD,
Chief Medical Officer,
STAAR Surgical Company
INCORPORATING THE ICL INTO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Q: What made you decide to adopt the ICL in your practices?
T. Hunter Newsom, MD: I learned about the Visian ICL™ (STAAR Surgical Company) when I was finishing my residency in Iowa, from late 1999 to early 2000. Phakic IOLs were just being introduced at the time. I traveled to the Dominican Republic in the early 2000s, where Juan Batlle, MD, trained me to implant some of the first ICLs.
Neda Nikpoor, MD: In my training at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, I’d had very little exposure to ICLs. In my first year of practice, I chose to get training in implanting phakic lenses because it was important to me to be a well-rounded refractive surgeon. I was not comfortable performing LASIK or PRK on eyes with high refractive errors, even though laser treatments were the only options offered at that center. I wanted to be able to offer the right procedure for each patient’s needs.
Karolinne Rocha, MD, PhD: I, too, was reluctant to perform high-diopter corneal laser ablations. They make the cornea too flat, and recipients’ quality of vision is not good. Even with advanced wavefront-guided and topography-guided ablations, we are still inducing corneal higher-order aberrations in higher corrections.
I was heavily influenced by the experience of our colleagues overseas, such as Dr. Batlle and others, who have been achieving great outcomes with the EVO ICL™ (STAAR Surgical Company) and sharing their results during conferences. With the EVO ICL, we can offer an expanded range of refractive correction (see the sidebar, The EVO ICL™).
THE EVO ICL™
A phakic IOL for myopia with and without astigmatism. The EVO family comprises the EVO ICL, the EVO Toric ICL, the EVO+ ICL, and EVO+ Toric ICL. The design of the EVO lenses incorporates a 360-µm central port that allows aqueous humor to flow, removing the need for preoperative peripheral iridotomies and reducing the rates of anterior subcapsular cataract and pupillary block relative to earlier models.2 The EVO+ models feature an expanded optic size up to 6.1 mm to accommodate larger pupils.
The EVO Visian ICL is FDA-approved to correct from -3.00 to -20.00 D of myopia.
Toric ICLs can treat up to 4.00 D of astigmatism.
Figure 1. The EVO line of ICLs feature a 360-µm central port that permits the flow of aqueous humor.
George Waring IV, MD, FACS: Phakic IOLs were a large part of my fellowship training. In 2008, I, too, travelled to study and implant ICLs with Dr. Juan Batlle, which deepened my understanding of the technology and surgery. As far as my motivation to adopt the ICL, our practice is built on a concept of “vision for a lifetime,” originally described by my late father, George O. Waring III, MD, to provide full-spectrum vision correction at every stage of ocular maturity. With this mission in mind, and to Dr. Rocha’s point, I wanted the ability to provide full-spectrum vision correction. I believe the future of refractive corrections is lens-based, and the ICL is a big part of our offerings.
Aaron Waite, MD: I did my residency at the University of Tennessee, and I was fortunate to rotate with Ming Wang, MD, for a week in Nashville, as a resident. He trained me to implant two ICLs. During my fellowship in Colorado, I worked with Cliff Slate, MD, at the Evans Army hospital in Colorado Springs. He loved implanting ICLs. Many of the recruits were high myopes in whom Dr. Slate let me implant ICLs, and I was hooked after that experience.
Neel S. Vaidya, MD, MPH, MBA: The EVO ICL came to market right at the time that my fellowship ended and I started practicing. I watched my senior partners implant a few EVO ICLs, and their outcomes were phenomenal. My senior partner, Randy Epstein, MD, is a pillar within ophthalmology—extremely well-respected and a very good surgeon. He is not typically an early adopter of new technologies. When he adopted the EVO ICL very early and very aggressively, that was a big motivator for me. I adopted it myself and haven’t looked back since.
Matt Hirabayashi, MD: My first personal experience with the ICL was my own surgery, which was in December 2023 with Gregory Parkhurst, MD. Dr. Parkhurst is passionate about the ICL technology. When he finished with my left eye and moved the microscope out of the way, I could immediately see so clearly. My visual recovery was immediate. I knew my experience would be something unique to share with patients. (To read more about Dr. Hirabayashi’s experience receiving the EVO ICL in his own eyes, see the sidebar, The Practitioner Becomes the Patient).
By the spring of 2024, I was lucky enough to study with Dr. Rocha’s protégé, James Landreneau, MD, who began teaching me how to implant the ICL. As someone who has experienced improved vision with the ICL firsthand, it’s been great to see its impact on other people’s lives.
Dr. Newsom: For refractive corrections, I always preferred implanting an IOL over changing the shape of the cornea. I started my residency in 1997, in the early days of LASIK. When our colleagues would share postoperative data, the discussion would center around how many lines of vision correction were lost and whether that loss was worth it. Statistically, LASIK never really helped patients gain lines of vision. When I started implanting the Visian ICL and reviewed those postoperative data, many of those patients saw better than they ever had. I never saw results like that with LASIK.
I disagree with the principle of flattening the natural prolate cornea and drying it out. I believe the ICL works with the eye’s natural structures and produces excellent vision for my patients. I really like the fact that the EVO ICL has a central fluidics port that allows aqueous to flow and eliminates the need for a preoperative iridotomy. I feel like the ICL’s time has arrived.
Dr. Nikpoor: My experience is probably more like the average surgeon’s. Simply put, when I first started implanting the Visian ICL, my patients’ outcomes were amazing. In the beginning, I reserved the lens for patients who weren’t candidates for LASIK or PRK because, before the EVO ICL, I had some concerns about its long-term implications for glaucoma, pupillary blocks, etc. As soon as the EVO came out, I could tell it would be much safer for patients. The data from the EVO’s clinical trials at 6 months really made me comfortable offering it to most patients.1,3 The lens demonstrated consistently high levels of UDVA, and it confirmed that the EVO optic’s central port effectively enables aqueous humor to flow in a physiologic manner.
Dr. Rocha: My experience adopting the EVO ICL was very similar. I think EVO is a game-changer. We don’t need to do preoperative iridotomies anymore. Of course, we always aim to vault the lens precisely, but the safety data from the EVO ICL’s 6 month clinical trials really convinced me to adopt it.1
Dr. Waring: We cornea specialists know that the cornea has limits, and I’ve always respected that fact. When I started working with the ICL in 2007, I realized there wasn’t much of a difference between a -8.00-D and a -6.00-D correction. From there, what’s the difference between a -6.00-D and a -4.00-D correction? Or a -3.00-D? Dr. Parkhurst coined a phrase, the in-betweeners—those patients for whom we wished the EVO ICL platform had a lower dioptric range. The more accessible we can make EVO ICL implantation for our patients, the more my team and I will be using it. It’s been an amazing technology for our patients. In our practice, it’s become a replacement for PRK, and it achieves a LASIK-like outcome for those who may not be candidates for LASIK. We confidently recommend EVO ICL for anyone who may need -3.00 D or more of refractive correction and is an appropriate candidate.
Dr. Waite: I was always a fan of the Visian ICL’s outcomes, but implanting it required more time and attention, especially when I had to do preoperative laser iridotomies. Once I started implanting the EVO ICL, however, my optometrist and I looked at my results; we saw how fast and easy the postoperative recovery was, and we concluded that I should be implanting the EVO ICL more often. The EVO ICL has cut my PRK numbers in half. My implantations are way up, and the results speak for themselves.
DIAGNOSTIC DIFFERENCES: A COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN TEN BIOMETRY DEVICES
In a newly published study, Micheletti and Hall concluded that the results of various biometers are not interchangeable when used to preoperatively evaluate patients.† In 408 eyes with at least -1.00 D of spherical equivalent, but that had had no prior surgeries, the investigators tested 10 biometers: the Argos (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.); the Atlas 9000 (ZEISS); caliper; the IOLMaster 500 (ZEISS); the IOLMaster 700 (ZEISS), iTrace (Tracey Technologies); the Lenstar LS900 (Haag-Streit USA); the Orbscan II (Bausch + Lomb); the Pentacam HR (Oculus), and the Pentacam AXL Wave (Oculus). They found significant differences in white-to-white measurements, anterior chamber depth, and central corneal thickness between the devices. Adjustment factors (created from linear mixed-effect models) were as follows: -0.65 to 0.24 mm for white-to-white measurements; -0.21 to -0.16 mm for anterior chamber depth; and 19.9 to -36.0 μm for central corneal thickness. Micheletti and Hall concluded that adjustment factors for these preoperative measurements may compensate for the variation in readings from biometers prior to calculating lens size recommendations for phakic IOLs such as the EVO ICL.
Figure 1. For sizing phakic IOLs, Micheletti and Hall found that biometry readings are not consistent between devices.
† Micheletti JM, Hall B. Assessment of measurement variability across automated biometry devices. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2025;51(2):156-160.
EXPANDING THE EVO ICL OFFERING
Q: How has your patient selection path evolved regarding the EVO ICL’s diopter range?
Dr. Vaidya: Because I am just starting my career, the scary part of trying new technologies is changing age-old treatment paradigms. Many of those paradigms exist because they’ve worked well for a long time. LASIK, for example, became the household name in refractive surgery because it was backed by good data, and there was no better alternative technology until the EVO ICL came along. When I became comfortable implanting the EVO ICL, I gained confidence and became excited to offer it to my patients. Once I understood the technique and how to choose appropriate candidates, it produced very repeatable results (see the sidebar, Diagnostic Differences: A Comparison Study Between Ten Biometry Devices).
If we have a patient who seems like a slam dunk for laser vision correction, we may ask ourselves why we should take the extra chair time to introduce the option of the ICL. I believe patients should have the opportunity to choose, just like we give them the choice between a multifocal or a monofocal IOL in cataract surgery. Why should refractive surgery be any different? Although we still have to educate patients and help them make an informed decision, I have been surprised at the frequency at which patients choose the phakic lens over laser vision correction.
Dr. Hirabayashi: In our premium refractive practice, my team and I always think about the patient experience. It’s hard to argue over the excellent visual recovery with the ICL—I personally saw 20/12 within the first postoperative hour. There are very few procedures that can compete with outcomes like that, and the faster the patient experiences a happy outcome, the better.
The main reasons why people try the EVO ICL are its features: it doesn’t disrupt the anatomy, it offers future flexibility and reversibility, and its vertex distance and its optics are excellent. My vision was -4.50 D with 2.00 D of sphere bilaterally, and I had corneal thickness of about 600 µm. So, a wide range of treatments are on the table.
Dr. Waring: The cycle of innovation that produces new ophthalmic technologies usually starts with the more extreme disease states, and then it follows the scale of severity downward. Some past examples include cyclosporine, dysfunctional lens syndrome, and lens-based procedures for hyperopia. I believe we are witnessing the same thing happen with the Visian ICL, and now the EVO ICL. Historically, this lens was reserved for extreme cases of myopia, where other options were scarce. We’ve now transcended some of that thinking. We have the data, we have the outcomes, and we have our own collective experiences. We are presently going down in the dioptric scale to lower and lower corrections with the EVO ICL. I anticipate that the EVO ICL will follow the natural trajectory of the innovation cycle.
Dr. Rocha: I agree with Dr. Waring, and I also think it’s telling that the younger generation of doctors is increasingly choosing the EVO ICL for their own eyes.
STANDARDIZING EVO IN MODERATE MYOPES
Q: What are the best practices when using EVO ICL on patients who need correction of -6.00 D and below?
Dr. Newsom: To become comfortable using the ICL to treat refractive errors of -6.00 D and less, surgeons will have to overcome those three hurdles: fear, technology, and cost. What works best for my practice is patient testimonials—they are an effective direct-to-consumer marketing tactic. My daughter is 22 and has a refraction of -3.00 D, and I gave her the EVO ICL.
Dr. Nikpoor: Refractive surgeons have two main fears: fear of a poor outcome, and the fear of being different from their peers, because the average surgeon likes to be in good company and doesn’t want to be an outlier. The fear of poor outcomes is best addressed by promoting the safety of the ICL in published studies and real-world clinics. The more surgeons see great outcomes and a great safety profile with the EVO ICL, the more the procedure will be adopted (see the sidebar, Literature Summary: Safety, Efficacy, and Outcomes With the EVO ICL).
Dr. Rocha: I think surgeons need to be confident in recommending the EVO ICL to their patients. There are two main populations of surgeons. We still see younger doctors who, even after fellowships, have never been exposed to ICLs. Then there are the older physicians who are comfortable doing LASIK and the other procedures they’ve always done. To appeal to either group, the ICL needs to instill confidence. This is done with data: inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, measurements, postoperative vault, etc. Of course, patient and physician testimonies are invaluable.
Dr. Newsom: Fear can drive people away from a procedure, but it can also drive people into a procedure. There’s a fear that my laser is not going to work when I turn it on, and I’ll have to cancel 15 to 20 patients. As a surgeon, I much prefer lenses over the dependence on a laser. If my ICL doesn’t work, I pull it out and I grab the next one. I’ll always be able to have the ability to finish that surgery that day. Even in a worst-case scenario with an ICL, we can take it out. In a worst-case LASIK scenario, the cornea is never going to be the same again.
LITERATURE SUMMARY: SAFETY, EFFICACY, AND OUTCOMES WITH THE EVO ICL
High-quality clinical studies support the use of the EVO ICL.
Figure 1. The EVO ICL has demonstrated an exceptional safety profile in both its clinical trial and independent studies.
Figure 2. Clinical data support the efficacy of the EVO ICL across the full diopter curve.
A comprehensive list of published literature on EVO ICL lenses is available at https://us.staaruniversity.com/publications
HOW TO PRESENT THE EVO ICL TO PATIENTS
Q: How do you manage the conversation when patients come to your practice asking for a vision correction solution? Do you give them options or provide them with a strong professional recommendation?
Dr. Waite: Something Dr. Parkhurst talks about is not using the word “option” with patients. When we sit down with an ICL candidate, we say, “Based on your examination, your refraction, and your scans, an ICL would be best for your eye.”
Dr. Vaidya: We panelists are all somewhere in the process of changing our treatment approaches from offering the EVO ICL exclusively to non-laser candidates to offering it to all patients who may be candidates for laser vision correction or a phakic IOL. I think we need to frame our patient conversation as, “This really is the best surgery for you, even though you’re a candidate for other things.” We do this already with multifocal IOLs versus the insurance-covered options. We don’t have to hard-sell EVO ICL candidates, but we can make a strong case for why we recommend that option. Then, when they get to the counselor’s room, they understand the value of what they’re paying for (see the sidebar, Tips for a Successful ICL Practice).
Dr. Newsom: I agree. I wouldn’t give my mom an option when it comes to her eye surgery, because I do know what’s best. When I make my professional recommendation, I don’t feel like I’m selling anything, and I don’t pressure patients. They are free to delay surgery or seek another opinion. And then, we have to deliver. If I do my mom’s surgery, I’d better not mess it up! If we can hold ourselves to a high standard of care, we never have to apologize for what we do. Patients come to us for our expertise, and we shouldn’t feel bad giving it. At various times at professional meetings, I’ve heard surgeons say, “I thought the ICL was the best choice for the patient, but I did LASIK because it was cheaper.” To my patients who balk at the cost of the ICL, I say, “Go save up your money and come back in a year. I want to give you the ICL. Your refraction is -4.00 D. You could do LASIK, but that’s not a good procedure for everyone.”
Dr. Rocha: The patient discussion requires balance. We don’t want to give patients too many options. We need to confidently make a treatment recommendation.
Dr. Waring: Years ago, my staff and I moved from an opt-in mentality to an opt-out mentality, a concept we learned from Steven Dell, MD, and it has gained traction in our practice. What I mean by this is that most lens-based surgeons in the US have opt-in practices, where they present patients all the IOL options and add-ons, and patients may elect, or opt-in, for offerings that are not covered services. In our opt-out approach, we moved away from menus. We essentially inform our clients of our recommendation to address the various refractive opportunities that may be present. We are careful to explain that we can do as much or as little as they desire to meet their goals. Having good, functional vision benefits the patient during every waking second for the rest of their life, so I think there’s wisdom in fixing whatever we can fix while we’re in the eye. The patient can opt out from whatever it is we recommend at their discretion. This is a very different approach than giving patients a menu and asking them to opt into services that may not be covered in an apologetic way.
Tips for a Successful ICL Practice
A successful refractive practice is as much about management as it is about great outcomes. Here are some tried-and-true practice management tips for getting started with the ICL.
- Find a Mentor: If you are a fellow or just getting started, find a good ICL mentor in your training period.
- Watch and Learn: Contact an EVO ICL surgeon, visit their practice, and talk to their staff.
- Pre-Education is Key: This will ensure patients arrive well-informed and empowered to make the best decisions for their eyes.
- Educate Staff: Speak the same language when counseling patients so there’s consistency and clarity throughout the consultation. Staff should be equipped to answer questions on the technology.
- Make a Strong Recommendation: Make it clear to your eligible patients that you strongly recommend the ICL for their needs. Explain your recommendation so they understand the value you’re delivering. Reassure them that the procedure is reversible if they don’t like the result.
- Educate Optometrists: Explain the benefits of EVO. EVO keeps their patients loyal with a yearly check-in visit.
- Share Success: If you have ICL recipients on your vision care team, leverage their visual performance and help them share their story with other potential patients on social media and the practice’s website.
- Expand Your Offering to all qualified patients, including moderate myopes. Patients are looking for vision correction alternatives.
CONCLUSIONS
Q: What are the biggest benefits of the EVO ICL to you as refractive surgeons?
Dr. Vaidya: One of the biggest selling points of the EVO ICL for patients is its reversibility. That gives them a high level of comfort to proceed with the surgery. Also, this versatility separates the ICL from LASIK.
We are chipping away at the paradigm that refractive surgery equals LASIK, thanks to phakic lenses like the EVO ICL. I think it’s wise for young residents or surgeons to get exposure to the EVO ICL early, especially for those who are good at cataract surgery. After a little bit of practice, we can implant the EVO ICL with high repeatability, and the great outcomes are fun. If I were entering practice today, I probably wouldn’t buy a laser. I would certainly use the EVO ICL in eyes with -3.00 D or more of refractive error before I invested in a laser setup. The barrier to entry with the EVO ICL is extremely low; it requires zero investment other than the mental energy to become a good IOL surgeon, which is a testament to its technology.
Dr. Newsom: A related advantage of the ICL is its minimal effect on the eye. As I mentioned, I implanted it in my daughter, who is 22. In 10 or 15 years, I will probably replace the lens with something else. All I will have to deal with is a small, old scar. That’s a huge plus.
Dr. Waite: I love using the new EVO ICL. It provides excellent optical quality for prescriptions above -6.00 and offers similar performance for lower prescriptions. Additionally, it is fully removable, allowing for the preservation of the eye’s naturally prolate cornea, ensuring excellent optics even decades later when lens replacement becomes necessary. It has become a game changer for patients with stable keratoconus and good corrected distance visual acuity. Corneas too thin for LASIK? No problem for the ICL. It is an integral part of my ability to help my patients.
Dr. Waring: The EVO ICL has a number of benefits and features which are unique in our vision-correction procedure offerings. Mostly, it is an additive procedure, and as a result, it allows for customization over a client’s lifetime as they move through the various stages of ocular maturity.
To watch corresponding interviews with these physicians, click here.
The Practitioner Becomes the Patient
By Matt Hirabayashi, MD
I’ve been wearing contact lenses or glasses since the 7th grade, for a prescription of -4.50 D bilaterally. Every winter, my eyes got very dry. Contact lenses never worked well for me, and glasses were annoying to keep track of. About a year ago, in the middle of a cataract surgery, I guess I didn’t blink often enough, and my contact lens dried out. I blinked it out of my right eye. The lens did not fall into the operating field, but my team and I had to stop to adjust the ocular. That’s when I knew I had to seek a more permanent solution.
I was fortunate to be exposed to the EVO ICL in my residency training with James Landreneau, MD. Although my prescription and corneal thickness made me a candidate for several treatments—LASIK, SMILE, LALEX, and PRK were all on the table—I was particularly excited about EVO. I appreciated that lens-based surgery would leave my ocular anatomy intact, which would preserve my biometric measurements for future procedures and greatly reduce my risk of experiencing dry eye disease. I also knew that the EVO ICL implantation would be a reversible procedure. That knowledge still gives me a lot of comfort, which I relay to my own ICL patient-candidates. As far as risk factors, all the clinical trials for the EVO and previous versions of the ICL have shown it to be very safe.1,3 I underwent bilateral implantation of the EVO ICL in 2023, and it’s been life-changing ever since.
Surgical Experience
My refractive patients (and my surgical colleagues) often want to know what the ICL surgery experience was like for me. In short, it was very easy.
I flew into Parkhurst NuVision (San Antonio, TX) for my scheduled surgery with Gregory Parkhurst, MD. His technicians performed my preoperative scans. I got to pick the lens size for my own eyes—I was patient zero for the VAULT trial I was conducting on AI-powered predictions for postoperative vault with ICLs.
In the OR, Dr. Parkhurst swung the microscope over my face. I didn’t feel the eyelid holder attaching to my eye; at most, I felt slight pressure. I was very comfortable the entire time.
Before the surgery, I can remember how blurry my vision was as I looked up at the ceiling from the bed that the team rolled back to the OR. Once Dr. Parkhurst was finished implanting the ICL in my left eye, he pulled the microscope away, and I’ll never forget that the lines on the ceiling were now totally clear and in focus. In those first seconds after surgery, I was already seeing better than I ever had, which felt incredible.
The implantation of my second eye went very quickly. About 1 hour after my procedure, I was brought to the examination room for the postoperative check-up, and my bilateral vision was already 20/12. Just 1 hour after surgery. I did not have elevated IOP, and my eyes weren’t even red. I flew home to Missouri that evening, and my staff performed my 1-day and 1-week postoperative examinations.
Enjoying Ocular Comfort After Surgery
To potential ICL candidates, I emphasize how remarkably fast the visual recovery usually is. The number of ICL recipients whose UCVA is 20/15 or better on the first postoperative day is impressive. What is equally impressive is how comfortable these patients’ eyes feel compared to the postoperative recovery from LASIK. Surgeons often counsel LASIK patients that their eyes may feel “gritty” the next day, and some practitioners even give their patients rescue drops. That’s not the case with ICLs. I never experienced dryness, grittiness, or foreign-body sensation after my ICL surgery. My eyes didn’t really feel like they had undergone surgery.
Following my surgery, I experienced my first winter in Missouri without ocular dryness, because I didn’t have to wear contact lenses. Before the surgery, I hadn’t considered myself contact lens–intolerant. Although wearing them made my eyes dry and itchy throughout the day, I had no choice but to wear them, so I normalized the discomfort. I wonder how many patients out there would feel similarly, and I wish there were a way to show them how much easier life could be with ICLs.
Postoperative Night Vision
Immediately after surgery, especially when I was still dilated a little bit, I saw some halos and glares. Within 1 week postoperatively, I had very few issues with halos or glare. After 2 more weeks, I only saw them when I drove at night, when an oncoming headlight would be in a certain spot for a moment. Within 2 to 3 months, those phenomena were totally gone.
The Freedom of New Vision
I am a flight instructor, and when I fly at high altitudes, the air is a lot drier, and wind blows in my face from different directions. Wearing glasses was not an option while I was flying, yet contact lenses dried out so quickly. It’s been so nice to not have that annoyance anymore. I also love not having to worry about glasses or contact lenses and cleaning solutions when I travel. I tell my ICL recipients to savor their first experience travelling after their surgery without this burden. I’m so grateful for the quality of vision and quality of life the EVO ICL has given me!
1. Packer M. The EVO ICL for moderate myopia: results from the US FDA clinical trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:3981–3991.
2. Packer M. The implantable collamer lens with a central port: review of the literature. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018:12 2427–2438.
3. Packer M. Evaluation of the EVO/EVO+ sphere and toric Visian ICL: six month results from the United States Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:1541–1553.
Important Safety Information for the EVO Visian ICL™ Product Family
The EVO Visian ICL is indicated for phakic patients 21-45 years of age to correct/reduce myopia with up to 4.00 D of astigmatism with a spherical equivalent ranging from -3.00 to -20.0 D and with an anterior chamber depth (ACD) 3.0 mm or greater.
The EVO Visian ICL is contraindicated in patients with a true ACD of <3.00mm; with anterior chamber angle less than Grade III; who have moderate to severe glaucoma, who are pregnant or nursing; less than 21 years of age; and who do not meet the minimum endothelial cell density (ECD) listed in the Directions For Use (DFU).
A summary of the relevant warnings, precautions and side effects: Endothelial cell loss, corneal edema, cataract, narrowing of the anterior chamber angle, pupillary block, increased intraocular pressure, glaucoma, secondary surgery to reposition, replace or remove the ICL, loss of BSCVA, increase in refractive astigmatism, glare and/or halos, pigment dispersion, iris transillumination defects, endophthalmitis, hypopyon, corneal endothelial damage, ICL dislocation, cystoid macular edema, iritis, retinal detachment, vitritis, and iris prolapse.
Please review the DFU available at https://edfu.staar.com/edfu/ for complete safety and other information before performing the clinical procedure.
