A 3-year follow-up study of a new corneal inlay: clinical results and outcomes

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with corneal techniques

Corneal techniques for enhancing near and intermediate vision to correct presbyopia include surgical and contact lens treatment modalities. Broad approaches used independently or in combination include correcting one eye for distant and the other for near or intermediate vision, (termed monovision or mini-monovision depending on the degree of anisometropia) and/or extending the eye's depth of focus [1]. This report reviews the evidence for the treatment profile, safety, and efficacy of the current range of corneal techniques for managing presbyopia. The visual needs and expectations of the patient, their ocular characteristics, and prior history of surgery are critical considerations for patient selection and preoperative evaluation. Contraindications to refractive surgery include unstable refraction, corneal abnormalities, inadequate corneal thickness for the proposed ablation depth, ocular and systemic co-morbidities, uncontrolled mental health issues and unrealistic patient expectations. Laser refractive options for monovision include surface/stromal ablation techniques and keratorefractive lenticule extraction. Alteration of spherical aberration and multifocal ablation profiles are the primary means for increasing ocular depth of focus, using surface and non-surface laser refractive techniques. Corneal inlays use either small aperture optics to increase depth of field or modify the anterior corneal curvature to induce corneal multifocality. In presbyopia correction by conductive keratoplasty, radiofrequency energy is applied to the mid-peripheral corneal stroma, leading to mid-peripheral corneal shrinkage and central corneal steepening. Hyperopic orthokeratology lens fitting can induce spherical aberration and correct some level of presbyopia. Postoperative management, and consideration of potential complications, varies according to technique applied and the time to restore corneal stability, but a minimum of 3 months of follow-up is recommended after corneal refractive procedures. Ongoing follow-up is important in orthokeratology and longer-term follow-up may be required in the event of late complications following corneal inlay surgery.

Review of Presbyopia Treatment with Corneal Inlays and New Developments

Presbyopia may represent the largest segment of refractive errors that is without an established and effective refractive surgery treatment. Corneal Inlays are materials (synthetic or allogenic) implanted in the stroma of patients’ corneas to improve presbyopia. These inlays, introduced into the United States in 2015 via the small-aperture corneal inlay (KAMRA^TM, SightLife Surgical/CorneaGen, Seattle, Washington, United States), were met with an initial wave of enthusiasm. Subsequent models like the shape-changing corneal inlay (RAINDROP^TM, Revision Optics, Lake Forest, California, United States) offered excellent results for patients, but longer-term research raised questions about patient safety. At the time of this article, no synthetic corneal inlays are available in the United States for the correction of presbyopia. Other options for presbyopia correction include allograft corneal inlays, trifocal synthetic corneal inlays, pharmacologic therapies, scleral incisions or additive techniques and PresbyLASIK. Presently, allograft inlays consist of corneal lenticules removed from patients undergoing Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE). We will review corneal inlays and other alternative procedures that may provide effective and predictable treatments for patients with presbyopia.

Assessment of a New Trifocal Diffractive Corneal Inlay for Presbyopia Correction Using an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator

In this work, we analyze a proposal of a new intracorneal diffractive lens for presbyopia correction that could allow good, distance, intermediate and near vision. By using an adaptive optics visual simulator, we study the influence of two factors in the inlay performance: the spherical aberration (SA) and the potential errors of in thickness, induced in the manufacturing process. We show that the inlay through-the-focus imaging performance can be customized with the SA value, favoring either distance–intermediate or intermediate–near vision. Moreover, we found that with thickness variations of 10%, the inlay still maintains its trifocal nature.

Refractive corneal inlay implantation outcomes: a preliminary systematic review

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.

A new trifocal corneal inlay for presbyopia

Corneal inlays (CIs) are the most recent surgical procedure for the treatment of presbyopia in patients who want complete independence from the use of glasses or contact lenses. Although refractive surgery in presbyopic patients is mostly performed in combination with cataract surgery, when the implantation of an intraocular lens is not necessary, the option of CIs has the advantage of being minimally invasive. Current designs of CIs are, either: small aperture devices, or refractive devices, however, both methods do not have good performance simultaneously at intermediate and near distances in eyes that are unable to accommodate. In the present study, we propose the first design of a trifocal CI, allowing good vision, at the same time, at far, intermediate and near vision in presbyopic eyes. We first demonstrate the good performance of the new inlay in comparison with a commercially available CI by using optical design software. We next confirm experimentally the image forming capabilities of our proposal employing an adaptive optics based optical simulator. This new design also has a number of parameters that can be varied to make personalized trifocal CI, opening up a new avenue for the treatment of presbyopia.

Inlays and the cornea

Presbyopia is a growing problem in view of an aging global population and increasingly patients desire spectacle-free solutions to address this condition. Surgically implanted corneal inlays have been the topic of renewed research efforts in the past several years as a treatment option for presbyopia, with several approaches being used to modify the refractive properties of the cornea and enhance near vision. In this review we discuss historical approaches to corneal inlay surgery, critically appraise the current generation of presbyopia-correcting corneal inlays and their associated complications and consider the future prospects for emerging corneal inlay technologies that aim address the shortcomings of currently available inlays.

Refractive surgery beyond 2020

Refractive surgery refers to any procedure that corrects or minimizes refractive errors. Today, refractive surgery has evolved beyond the traditional laser refractive surgery, embodied by the popular laser in situ keratomileusis or 'LASIK'. New keratorefractive techniques such as small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) avoids corneal flap creation and uses a single laser device, while advances in surface ablation techniques have seen a resurgence in its popularity. Presbyopic treatment options have also expanded to include new ablation profiles, intracorneal implants, and phakic intraocular implants. With the improved safety and efficacy of refractive lens exchange, a wider variety of intraocular lens implants with advanced optics provide more options for refractive correction in carefully selected patients. In this review, we also discuss possible developments in refractive surgery beyond 2020, such as preoperative evaluation of refractive patients using machine learning and artificial intelligence, potential use of stromal lenticules harvested from SMILE for presbyopic treatments, and various advances in intraocular lens implants that may provide a closer to 'physiological correction' of refractive errors.

Biology of keratorefractive surgery- PRK, PTK, LASIK, SMILE, inlays and other refractive procedures

The outcomes of refractive surgical procedures to improve uncorrected vision in patients-including photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) and corneal inlay procedures-is in large part determined by the corneal wound healing response after surgery. The wound healing response varies depending on the type of surgery, the level of intended correction of refractive error, the post-operative inflammatory response, generation of opacity producing myofibroblasts and likely poorly understood genetic factors. This article details what is known about these specific wound healing responses that include apoptosis of keratocytes and myofibroblasts, mitosis of corneal fibroblasts and myofibroblast precursors, the development of myofibroblasts from keratocyte-derived corneal fibroblasts and bone marrow-derived fibrocytes, deposition of disordered extracellular matrix by corneal fibroblasts and myofibroblasts, healing of the epithelial injury, and regeneration of the epithelial basement membrane. Problems with epithelial and stromal cellular viability and function that are altered by corneal inlays are also discussed. A better understanding of the wound healing response in refractive surgical procedures is likely to lead to better treatments to improve outcomes, limit complications of keratorefractive surgical procedures, and improve the safety and efficiency of refractive surgical procedures.