Comparison of Clarus and Optomap Ultra-widefield Imaging Systems Before and After EVO-ICL Implantation in High Myopia

Introduction: To investigate the features of imaging differences between Clarus and Optomap ultra-widefield imaging systems after implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation. Methods: Non-randomized controlled study. 92 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 each. Define Dx as the distance between the upper furcation of central retinal artery and the central fovea of macula. Pixels of optic cup and disk and Dx as well as optic cup/disk ratio were calculated and compared on each machine before and after surgery. Results: All surgeries were uneventful without complications. Safety and efficacy index were both 100% at 1 month. Values of both optic cup and disk area were in decrease after surgery with statistically significant differences (p<0.001), while cup/disc ratio remained the same (Clarus mean of differences = -0.0028, p=0.83; Optomap mean of differences = -0.0016, p=0.76). Dx of images captured by either machine was statistically significantly decreased (p<0.001). Differences of both optic cup (p=0.057) and disk (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.