Barcelona 2015 Programme Registration Glaucoma Day 2015 Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Hotel Booking Star Alliance
ISTANBUL escrs









Take a look inside the London 2014 Congress

video-icon

Then register to join us
in Barcelona!





A comparative study between two different corneal inlays

Search Abstracts by author or title
(results will display both Free Papers & Poster)

Session Details

Session Title: Intracorneal Inlays for Presbyopia

Session Date/Time: Tuesday 08/09/2015 | 16:00-18:00

Paper Time: 16:30

Venue: Main Auditorium

First Author: : C.Gutierrez-Amoros SPAIN

Co Author(s): :    B. Ruiz   M. Antelo   L. Calzon              

Abstract Details

Purpose:

A study to compare two different corneal inlays used to treat presbyopia : Raindrop Near Vision Inlay ( ReVision Optics, Lake Forest,CA ) and Kamra Inlay ( Acufocus, Irvine, CA ).

Setting:

Vista Gutierrez Amoros clinic, A Coruña, Spain

Methods:

Twenty-six. (26) monocularly implanted patients are enrolled into this study (Kamra Inlay group: n= 13, Raindrop inlay group: n= 13). Two different femtosecond lasers were used: Ziemer Z6 and Victus workstation. Flap thickness ranged from 150 microns ( Raindrop ) and pockets to 200 microns (Kamra). Refractive corrections were treated with the Z 100 excimer laser (Technolas). Postoperative measurements included: visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, patient questionnaires ,topography, Scheimpflug images, corneal aberrometry, corneal epithelial thickness maps and vision quality.

Results:

Both inlays were easily implanted, Raindrop did not require additional centration instrument. The Raindrop group showed faster visual recovery for near and distance, reaching stability by 1 month. At 6 month, mean monocular UNVA was better in the Raindrop group ( Raindrop 0.80 vs. Kamra 0.71 ). Both groups achieved mean binocular UDVA of 1.0. Mesopic activities ( i.e.driving, reading ) were easier in the Raindrop group. Two inlays were explanted in the Kamra group and none in the Raindrop group.

Conclusions:

Raindrop showed better near vision,easier mesopic functionality and faster visual recovery time when compared to Kamra. Both groups performed well binocularly at distance. In my experience , Kamra and Raindrop inlays appear to be viable options in the treatment of presbyopia.

Financial Interest:

One of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company

Back to previous