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

Take a look inside the London 2014 Congress


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


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 ).


Vista Gutierrez Amoros clinic, A Coruña, Spain


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.


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.


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