4.3 Article

One-year visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after surgical correction of presbyopia with an intracorneal inlay of a new design

Journal

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages 262-269

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.08.031

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the third-generation Kamra corneal inlay (ACI 7000PDT) implanted monocularly in corneal pockets of emmetropic presbyopic patients to improve near and intermediate vision. SETTING: University Eye Clinic, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. DESIGN: Cohort study. METHODS: The corneal inlay was implanted in the nondominant eye over the line of sight by creating a corneal pocket with a femtosecond laser. The minimum postoperative follow-up was 12 months. Distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities were assessed over the follow-up. Other examinations included slitlamp evaluation, central keratometry, computerized corneal topography, endothelial cell count, and central corneal thickness. Patients completed satisfaction questionnaires preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The study evaluated 24 patients. After a mean follow-up of 12 months, 92% of patients read Jaeger (J) 3 or better with the surgical eye, the mean binocular uncorrected near visual acuity improved from J5 preoperatively to J2, and the mean binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was 20/20 (67% >= 20/20). At 12 months, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 in the surgical eye and 20/16 binocularly. Patients reported no change in distance vision, and their need for reading glasses decreased significantly (P<.001). No inlay was explanted and or recentered during the reported follow-up. CONCLUSION: The new corneal inlay was a safe and effective treatment for presbyopia over a 1-year follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available