June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Effect of small aperture intra-corneal inlay on peripheral kinetic visual fields
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Eric Brooker
    AcuFocus, Irvine, CA
  • Abhiram Vilupuru
    AcuFocus, Irvine, CA
  • George Waring
    AcuFocus, Irvine, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Eric Brooker, AcuFocus, Inc. (C); Abhiram Vilupuru, AcuFocus (E); George Waring, AcuFocus (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 3717. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Eric Brooker, Abhiram Vilupuru, George Waring; Effect of small aperture intra-corneal inlay on peripheral kinetic visual fields. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):3717.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: The KAMRA intra-corneal inlay (AcuFocus, Inc.) alleviates the symptoms of presbyopia by extending the depth of focus through small aperture optics. Following monocular implantation over a patient's coaxially sighted corneal reflex, the opaque inlay, which has an overall diameter of 3.8mm and a central aperture of 1.6mm, only allows central light rays to reach the retina, therefore increasing the eyes depth of focus. The main objective of this study was to evaluate visual acuity and the extent of the visual field following implantation of a small aperture corneal inlay.

Methods: Four subjects were implanted monocularly with the inlay in their non-dominant eye. Visual acuity and pupil size were recorded in conjunction with the visual field testing. Automated Goldmann kinetic perimetry was performed in both implanted and non-implanted eyes using the HAAG-STREIT Octopus 900. Goldmann size III4e targets moving at a speed of 5o/sec were presented along 16 isopters spanning the full extent of the visual field. Total area as well as extent of the field in superior, inferior, nasal and temporal directions was calculated. The data is presented as mean ± sd and statistical comparisons were performed using Student's t test.

Results: UCDVA at time of study was 0.035 ± 0.11 logMAR in the implant eye and -0.065 ± 0.07 logMAR in the non-implant eye. UCNVA was 0.01 ± 0.13 logMAR in the implant eye and 0.60 ± 0.05 logMAR in the non-implant eye. Mesopic pupil size for implant and non-implant eye was 5.5 ± 0.7 and 5.5 ± 1.1 mm respectively. Total area of the visual field in the implant eye was 12825 ± 2080 deg2 compared to 12321 ± 1383 deg2 in the non-implanted eye (p = 0.25). Extent of the visual field in the implant and non-implanted eyes was, superiorly (47.5 ± 12.5, 48 ± 11 deg), inferiorly (63.5 ± 1.3, 64.5 ± 0.6 deg), nasally (58.8 ± 7.4, 56.5 ± 3.3 deg) and temporally (83.3 ± 4, 83.5 ± 4 deg).

Conclusions: Implantation of a small aperture intra-corneal inlay improved UCNVA while maintaining UCDVA. The inlay did not decrease the extent of visual field as demonstrated by the lack of difference in total area and extent of kinetic visual field when comparing the implanted and non-implanted eyes.

Keywords: 653 presbyopia • 758 visual fields • 682 refractive surgery: other technologies  

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.