Purchase this article with an account.
T. B. Porter, N. Schneider, A. Lang, K. Holliday, T. Miller, A. Le, A. Vatz, D. Johnson, E. Barragan; Effect of Increasing the Diameter of the PRESBYLENS® Intracorneal Inlay for the Correction of Presbyopia. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009;50(13):594.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Visual acuity outcomes are presented for two presbyopia-correcting intracorneal inlays. The objective was to determine the optimal inlay design to provide good near vision while minimally affecting distance vision.
16 emmetropic, presbyopic subjects (mean age 50 years [46 to 54], mean preop spherical equivalent 0.16 D [-0.25 to 0.75], mean near add 1.77 D [1.50 to 2.5]) were randomly selected to be implanted, under standard LASIK-style flaps, with 1.5 or 2.0 mm diameter hydrogel intracorneal inlays of constant thickness. Subjects were screened for tolerance to monovision and the clinical test was conducted under an IRB-approved protocol. EDTRS visual acuity was measured at 40 cm (near) and 6 meters (distance).
In the treated eye, uncorrected near visual acuity improved in 100% of eyes. All eyes implanted with 2.0 mm inlays achieved 20/25 or better uncorrected near visual acuity compared to 50% 20/25 or better with 1.5 mm inlays, while no eyes achieved 20/40 or better vision preoperatively. The 2.0 mm inlay improved the near lines gained in the implant eye significantly better than the 1.5 mm inlay; the mean gain in lines of uncorrected near visual acuity was 3.23 [1.8 to 5.8] and 5.15 [4.4 to 6.0] respectively. There were no significant differences between inlay designs for uncorrected distance visual acuity and/or distance lines lost in the implant eye. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity did not significantly deteriorate post-operatively for any design and all patients could read the 20/25 line.
This clinical test demonstrates that eyes implanted with 2.0 mm inlays performed significantly better at near than those treated with 1.5 mm inlays despite no significant differences being observed for distance vision.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only