José-María Sánchez-González1,2, Davide Borroni3,4, Rahul Rachwani-Anil5, Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada6,7. 1. Department of Physics of Condensed Matter, Optics Area, University of Seville, Reina Mercedes St., Seville, Spain. jsanchez80@us.es. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Tecnolaser Clinic Vision, Seville, Spain. jsanchez80@us.es. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Fondazione Banca Degli Occhi Del Veneto Onlus, Zelarino, Venezia, Italy. 4. Department of Doctoral Studies, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Málaga, Spain. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Virgen de la Nieves, Granada, Spain. 7. Department of Ophthalmology (Qvision), Vithas Virgen del Mar Hospital, Almería, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review all case series of refractive corneal inlay implantation: Flexivue (Presbia, Netherlands), Invue (BioVision, Brügg, Switzerland) and Icolens (Neoptics, Hünenberg, Switzerland) performed in presbyopia patients and to evaluate the reported visual outcomes. In addition, our aim is to provide assessment for complications and to report the satisfaction rates. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were consulted using "refractive corneal inlay", "Flexivue Inlay", "Invue Inlay" and "Icolens inlay" as keywords. 147 articles were found, and they were assessed considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After filtering, this systemic review included ten articles, published between 2011 and 2020. RESULTS: 308 eyes from 308 participants were enrolled in this systematic review. Mean maximum follow-up was 13.9 months. Nine of the ten case series included used femtosecond laser for the corneal pocket creation. Mean pocket depth was 293.75 µm. 77.5% of the eyes reported a postoperative uncorrected near visual acuity of 20/32 or better, and 19.20% of the inlay-implanted eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. The most prominent complications were halos, pain, photophobia, and poor distance visual acuity. 27 eyes (8.7%) had to be explanted due to complications, such as near-distance spectacle dependence or blurred distance vision. CONCLUSION: Refractive corneal inlay outcomes demonstrated high efficacy, safety, and satisfaction rates. Furthermore, it is a reversible technique. However, the findings must be viewed with caution due potential conflict of interest. Further research with higher sample size is needed to validate these findings.
PURPOSE: To review all case series of refractive corneal inlay implantation: Flexivue (Presbia, Netherlands), Invue (BioVision, Brügg, Switzerland) and Icolens (Neoptics, Hünenberg, Switzerland) performed in presbyopia patients and to evaluate the reported visual outcomes. In addition, our aim is to provide assessment for complications and to report the satisfaction rates. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were consulted using "refractive corneal inlay", "Flexivue Inlay", "Invue Inlay" and "Icolens inlay" as keywords. 147 articles were found, and they were assessed considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After filtering, this systemic review included ten articles, published between 2011 and 2020. RESULTS: 308 eyes from 308 participants were enrolled in this systematic review. Mean maximum follow-up was 13.9 months. Nine of the ten case series included used femtosecond laser for the corneal pocket creation. Mean pocket depth was 293.75 µm. 77.5% of the eyes reported a postoperative uncorrected near visual acuity of 20/32 or better, and 19.20% of the inlay-implanted eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. The most prominent complications were halos, pain, photophobia, and poor distance visual acuity. 27 eyes (8.7%) had to be explanted due to complications, such as near-distance spectacle dependence or blurred distance vision. CONCLUSION: Refractive corneal inlay outcomes demonstrated high efficacy, safety, and satisfaction rates. Furthermore, it is a reversible technique. However, the findings must be viewed with caution due potential conflict of interest. Further research with higher sample size is needed to validate these findings.
Authors: Dimitrios I Bouzoukis; George D Kymionis; Sophia I Panagopoulou; Vasilios F Diakonis; Aristophanes I Pallikaris; Aliki N Limnopoulou; Dimitra M Portaliou; Ioannis G Pallikaris Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Dimitrios I Bouzoukis; George D Kymionis; Aliki N Limnopoulou; George A Kounis; Ioannis G Pallikaris Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Emma S Duignan; Stephen Farrell; Maxwell P Treacy; Tim Fulcher; Paul O'Brien; William Power; Conor C Murphy Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Aliki N Limnopoulou; Dimitrios I Bouzoukis; George D Kymionis; Sophia I Panagopoulou; Sotiris Plainis; Aristophanes I Pallikaris; Vladimir Feingold; Ioannis G Pallikaris Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Majid Moshirfar; Marshall K Henrie; Carter J Payne; Briana K Ply; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Steven H Linn; Phillip C Hoopes Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2022-08-24