PURPOSE: To report the clinical and visual outcomes of a series of patients implanted with the PermaVision intracorneal lens (ReVision Optics Inc, Lake Forest, California, USA) for correction of hyperopia. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, clinical trial study. METHODS: Fifteen patients were implanted with the intracorneal lens for correction of spherical hyperopic refractive errors ranging from 1.00 to 5.00 diopters (D) (mean, 2.45 D). All eyes were correctable to 20/20 before surgery. Patients were followed up to 3 years with measurements of residual refractive error, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA). RESULTS: For patients with follow-up of 1 year or more, the mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BSCVA was 0.15 (20/28 Snellen equivalent; range, 0.1 to 0.6) with an average change of -2.5 lines of BSCVA (range, 1 to -6 lines). Only 3 eyes (25%) achieved 20/20 or better UCVA. Two patients experienced early adverse events and 1 patient experienced a late-onset adverse event requiring eventual removal of the implant. Nine patients elected to have the implant removed, with dissatisfaction with the quality of vision as the most frequent reason for removal. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of visual and refractive outcomes with this device was less than satisfactory for most of the patients in our series. Although the problems of early onset migration or extrusion of the device are possible, late-onset ulceration noted in one of our patients most likely represents a neurotropic melt. Further research to improve the safety and quality of refractive result with intracorneal implants is needed.
PURPOSE: To report the clinical and visual outcomes of a series of patients implanted with the PermaVision intracorneal lens (ReVision Optics Inc, Lake Forest, California, USA) for correction of hyperopia. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, clinical trial study. METHODS: Fifteen patients were implanted with the intracorneal lens for correction of spherical hyperopic refractive errors ranging from 1.00 to 5.00 diopters (D) (mean, 2.45 D). All eyes were correctable to 20/20 before surgery. Patients were followed up to 3 years with measurements of residual refractive error, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA). RESULTS: For patients with follow-up of 1 year or more, the mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BSCVA was 0.15 (20/28 Snellen equivalent; range, 0.1 to 0.6) with an average change of -2.5 lines of BSCVA (range, 1 to -6 lines). Only 3 eyes (25%) achieved 20/20 or better UCVA. Two patients experienced early adverse events and 1 patient experienced a late-onset adverse event requiring eventual removal of the implant. Nine patients elected to have the implant removed, with dissatisfaction with the quality of vision as the most frequent reason for removal. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of visual and refractive outcomes with this device was less than satisfactory for most of the patients in our series. Although the problems of early onset migration or extrusion of the device are possible, late-onset ulceration noted in one of our patients most likely represents a neurotropic melt. Further research to improve the safety and quality of refractive result with intracorneal implants is needed.