Comparison of Clarus and Optomap Ultra-Widefield Imaging Systems before and after EVO-ICL Implantation in High Myopia

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the features of imaging differences between Clarus and Optomap ultra-widefield imaging systems after implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation. Methods: This was a non-randomized controlled study. Ninety-two eyes of 46 consecutive patients were enrolled. Full-scale ophthalmological examinations were conducted preoperatively. All patients underwent Clarus (CLARUS 500; Carl Zeiss, Dublin, USA) and Optomap (Daytona; Optos, UK) ultra-wide imaging sequentially under the same circumstance preoperatively and 1 month after EVO-ICL implantation. A single image was acquired from each. Dx was defined as the distance between the upper furcation of the central retinal artery and the central fovea of macula. Pixels of the optic cup and disc and Dx as well as the optic cup/disc ratio were calculated and compared on each machine before and after surgery. Results: All surgeries were uneventful without complications. Safety and efficacy indices were both 100% at 1 month. Values of both optic cup and disc areas were in decrease after surgery with statistically significant differences (p p = 0.83; Optomap mean of differences = −0.0016, p = 0.76). Dx of images captured with either machine was statistically significantly decreased (p p = 0.057) and disc (p = 0.041) areas of Clarus were more obvious than that of Optomap, while only the latter was with statistical significance. Difference of Dx of Clarus was statistically significantly larger than Optomap. Conclusions: Display ranges tend to be broadened after EVO-ICL implantation in both Clarus and Optomap ultra-widefield imaging systems, while Clarus shows a wider display range of the two, which encourages the application of Clarus when it comes to the detection of more peripheral retinal lesions.