Vaulting in pIOL has primarily been related to a combination of the size of the lens, the vault intrinsic to the design of the lens, and the placement of the haptics in ciliary sulcus structures. Moreover, the classic approach to postoperative vault in clinical practice and in most published studies results in a static vault value, as vault is measured under specific ambient light conditions, that is, subjectively during the slit-lamp examination
8 or objectively using high-frequency ultrasound biomicroscopy,
9 Scheimpflug imaging,
10 and AS-OCT.
11
The changes in vault under changing light conditions have been investigated by Petternel et al.
1 using partial coherence interferometry biometry. The ICLs studied included several models for the correction of myopia (11 eyes) and hyperopia (2 eyes), all without a central port. The authors found, applying our new dynamic concept approach, a mean VR of 73 ± 50 μm. More recently, Lindland et al.
4 studied the dynamics of the myopic and toric ICL model V4 (without a central port). Using a Visante OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), the authors measured vault under photopic conditions (257 lux) and mesopic conditions (2 lux). They observed a significant mean decrease of 40 ± 60 μm in central vault under photopic conditions, which was again significantly lower than that found in our series, probably owing to differences in the pIOL models studied in the mentioned studies (all without central port) and the significant difference in the brightness of the penlight (18,500 lux) used in our study to induce miosis.
Recently, Lee et al.
5 evaluated postoperative changes in vault under various lighting conditions in eyes implanted with ICLs with a central port. Static vault was assessed using a Visante OCT. The comparison of the V4c model with the V4 model revealed significant decreases in vault under photopic conditions in both groups. Moreover, changes in vault in eyes implanted with V4c ICLs were significantly larger than those recorded in eyes implanted with V4 ICLs, namely, a significant mean decrease in vault of 147 ± 59 μm in the V4c group (central port), whereas the decrease was only 88 ± 55 μm in the V4 group. These findings are consistent with our dynamic results, which show that the mean VR in lenses with a central port was very similar (167 ± 70 μm).
The findings from the above-mentioned studies illustrate the essentially dynamic nature of ICL vaulting. The exploration by means of the AS-OCT technology allows us to verify the continuous movements of the pupil result in movement of the pIOL toward and away from the crystalline lens. Therefore, when defining the separation between the anterior surface of the lens and the back surface of the ICL, we need not maintain the classic static vault value as we have done to date, because it only offers data at a specific time and under specific ambient light conditions. In addition, there is a gap between the maximum value of the vault under scotopic light conditions (e.g., in a dark room) and the minimum vault value when environmental conditions are photopic (e.g., going outside on a sunny day). These observations support the role of VR and VI as a complement to classic vault value measurement.
Findings for the variations in AS induced by changes in brightness in our and other series are somewhat controversial. The interpretation of these variations is also open to debate. Dynamic AS-OCT provides clear in vivo images of the ICL and the anterior-segment movements. However, despite the accuracy of the measurements obtained using this technology, the sulcus structures remain inaccessible. Consequently, variations in the pIOL-sulcus complex cannot be measured properly, thus preventing us from explaining the discrepancies found. During penlight-induced miosis, the iris pushes the pIOL down and warps the ICL so it adapts to the posterior surface of the iris, thus decreasing central vault. This movement enables the flow of aqueous humor through both the lateral and the central holes.
5 Similarly, we found no changes in ACD between photopic and scotopic conditions. However, we did find a significant increase in mean CLR (60 ± 66 μm) during miosis as reported Lindland et al.,
4 who emphasized the role of both the posterior movement of the ICL and the anterior movement of the crystalline lens in reducing vault under photopic conditions. Our findings contrast with those reported by Lin et al.
12 who observed that increasing light conditions shortened the ACD, while the ACD-ASpIOL remained mostly unchanged. In our series, the mean ACD-ASpIOL in miosis increased very significantly at 150 ± 120 μm. In addition, the ATA increased by a mean of 80 ± 120 μm in miosis, while the chamber angles developed a mean opening of 4.4° temporally and 5.2° nasally. We think that in order to understand these anterior segment changes, they must be viewed in 3D. We theorize that in miosis, the iris pushes the lens down, the chamber angle opens, the ATA distance widens, and the ACD increases. The CLR also increases and compensates for this change in the ACD; therefore, the final ACD does not vary significantly.
Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were found in VR when eyes with high vault were compared with eyes with low vault. The pIOL tends move more under changing light conditions when vault is higher (VR 211 ± 77 μm) than when the pIOL is closer to the crystalline lens (VR 122 ± 52 μm). There were no statistically significant differences between the models with a central port, namely, V4c and EVO+. In our series, we found no cases of central contact between the ICL and the crystalline lens, even under photopic conditions, although the dynamism of the pIOL inside the eye could have led cases of low vaulting during miosis to have a potential impact on cataract formation. In addition, peripheral contacts, especially in high-power myopic pIOLs, could play a role in cataractogenesis. Future studies with larger series should determine the relevance of potential peripheral and central contacts. Furthermore, although clinical data indicate that the behavior of the port in the flow of the aqueous humor could reduce the incidence of cataractogenesis, the role of the port needs to be fully defined.
One limitation of the study is that the variation of the time span from the surgery was not considered in the analysis of the cases. The pIOL vault decreases with time and this circumstance could in some way affect the VR and VI. However, the main objective of this pilot study was to define the dynamism of the vault through these novel dynamic concepts, VR and VI, and to highlight its clinical importance. Future studies will evaluate if these parameters could be affected over time.
In conclusion, although pIOL vault has traditionally been considered a static parameter, our study strengthens the idea that it is actually fully dynamic, varying continuously with the natural movements of the iris throughout the day. Consequently, it should be supplemented by VR and VI, which are dynamic concepts that are able to better reflect the actual movements of the pIOL in relation to the anterior-segment structures. The security criteria so far accepted regarding the vault should now be reconsidered in terms of this dynamism, because all these values are based on a static measurement. This could have a significant clinical impact regarding not only the pIOL vault assessment of the operated eye, but also the lens-sizing calculation algorithm for the contralateral eye when binocular surgeries are scheduled; thereafter, this should now consider the VR and VI obtained in the first eye. This and future studies using dynamic AS-OCT devices should help to redefine these new safety criteria in pIOLs.