Through-focus performance with a corneal shape–changing inlay: One-year results

Whitman, Jeffrey; Hovanesian, John; Steinert, Roger F.; Koch, Douglas D.; Potvin, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.04.024

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently marketed corneal inlays have either a pinhole design to extend depth-of-focus (Dexl et al, 2015), a thin 'lens' which reshapes the anterior corneal surface creating negative spherical aberrations (Whang et al, 2017;Whitman et al, 2016a;Whitman et al, 2016b) or attempts to create corneal multifocality (distance vision through a plano central zone surrounded by rings of varying additional power; Table 3). Previous large and impermeable inlays disrupted the cornea's natural state by hindering natural metabolic functions, hence modern inlays are thin, of small diameter and are made of biocompatible materials that have high fluid and nutrient permeability (Moarefi et al, 2017).…”

Section: Inlaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies

Wolffsohn

Davies

2019

Progress in Retinal and Eye Research

231

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presbyopia is a global problem affecting over a billion people worldwide. The prevalence of unmanaged presbyopia is as high as 50% of those over 50 years of age in developing world populations, due to a lack of awareness and accessibility to affordable treatment, and is even as high as 34% in developed countries. Definitions of presbyopia are inconsistent and varied, so we propose a redefinition that states "presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eye's focusing range reaches a point, when optimally corrected for distance vision, that the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual's requirements". Strategies for correcting presbyopia include separate optical devices located in front of the visual system (reading glasses) or a change in the direction of gaze to view through optical zones of different optical powers (bifocal, trifocal or progressive addition spectacle lenses), monovision (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses, laser refractive surgery and corneal collagen shrinkage), simultaneous images (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses and corneal inlays), pinhole depth of focus expansion (with intraocular lenses, corneal inlays and pharmaceuticals), crystalline lens softening (with lasers or pharmaceuticals) or restored dynamics (with 'accommodating' intraocular lenses, scleral expansion techniques and ciliary muscle electrostimulation); these strategies may be applied differently to the two eyes to optimise the range of clear focus for an individual's task requirements and minimise adverse visual effects. However, none fully overcome presbyopia in all patients. While the restoration of natural accommodation or an equivalent remains elusive, guidance is given on presbyopic correction evaluation techniques.

show abstract

Section: Inlaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies

Wolffsohn

Davies

2019

Progress in Retinal and Eye Research

231

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, previous studies have shown a favorable safety profile for patients receiving the inlay. 13 , 15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 10 A study in emmetropic patients with +1.50 to +2.00 D of presbyopia reported 97% of patients who received the inlay achieved visual acuities of 0.2 logMAR (20/32) or better at near, intermediate, and far distances. 13 One year after implantation, distance-corrected near acuity improved by more than 3 lines. Patients achieved a distance-corrected visual acuity of 0.3 logMAR (20/40) or better across a 3.50 D range of defocus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Recent studies have demonstrated that patients receiving the Raindrop Inlay experienced improvements in both near and intermediate visual acuity. 7 , 13 – 15 Garza et al, 7 Chayet and Barragan Garza, 14 and Whitman et al 15 reported that Raindrop is safe and effective in emmetropes, myopes, and hyperopes. One year results from a large multicenter study in emmetropic patients showed that 93% of patients achieved uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) of ≥20/25, with similar results obtained for uncorrected intermediate visual acuity and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, this study and others have shown presbyopic patients generally have a high level of satisfaction with the hydrogel inlay. 13 , 14 , 17 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of a hydrogel corneal inlay and monovision laser in situ keratomileusis in presbyopic patients: focus on visual performance and optical quality

Verdoorn

2017

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the visual performance and optical quality after Raindrop Near Vision Inlay implantation or monovision LASIK for the correction of presbyopia.Materials and methodsIn this retrospective case-series study, patients previously treated in the nondominant eye with monovision LASIK were compared with patients previously implanted with Raindrop Near Vision Inlay. The study enrolled 16 inlay and 15 monovision LASIK patients. Uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, binocular stereopsis, patient satisfaction, and patient task performance were assessed.ResultsPostoperatively, the mean spherical equivalent was −0.66 D (0.78 SD) for the inlay group and −1.03 D (0.56 SD) for the monovision LASIK group. Monocularly, at uncorrected near distances, 60% of inlay patients and 47% of monovision LASIK patients achieved ≥20/20. Monocularly, at uncorrected far distances, 75% of inlay patients and 40% of monovision LASIK patients achieved ≥20/32 vision. Binocularly, at near distances, 79% of inlay patients and 53% of monovision LASIK patients obtained ≥20/20 vision. All patients achieved ≥20/20 binocularly for distance. On average, inlay patients obtained 98 seconds of arc and monovision LASIK patients obtained 286 seconds of arc for stereopsis. Most (79%) of the inlay patients and 66% of monovision LASIK patients were satisfied with their near vision, while 86% of inlay patients and 67% of monovision LASIK patients were satisfied with their distance vision.ConclusionPatients receiving corneal inlays demonstrated better near and distance visual acuities, binocular stereopsis, task performance, and satisfaction, when compared to patients treated with monovision LASIK.

show abstract