Original Article|Articles in Press

KAMRA presbyopic inlay refractive outcomes: a Canadian perspective

Published:December 01, 2022DOI:



      To retrospectively analyze the visual outcomes of KAMRA (AcuFocus Inc, Irvine, Calif.) inlay insertion in a cohort of patients reporting success of procedure, complications, patient satisfaction, and refractive outcomes.


      Retrospective trial at the TLC Laser Centre, Toronto.


      A total of 5 surgeons at the practice inserted 35 KAMRA inlays in 35 patients between October 2012 and June 2014. Some patients had a sole KAMRA inlay insertion, whereas others had combined laser vision correction (LVC) and KAMRA inlay on either the same day or sequentially. There was a small cohort of patients who had previous unrelated LVC. Mean time of follow-up was 299 days.


      After KAMRA inlay insertion there was a significant improvement in uncorrected near visual acuity (p = 0.00009), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (p = 0.00006), and uncorrected distance visual acuity (p = 0.02), but levels of patient dissatisfaction were 43%. The most common cause for dissatisfaction was requirements for readers (23%), followed by dysphotopsias (11%). The explantation rate was 11.42%, and 28.5% of patients required enhancements after inlay insertion.


      The KAMRA corneal inlay has significant improvements in uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, and uncorrected distance visual acuity when used in isolation or combined with LVC. Appropriate patient selection is crucial. This procedure should not be used as first-line presbyopia management because of low levels of patient satisfaction, biocompatibility concerns, and explantation rates.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Naroo S
        • Bilkhu PS.
        Clinical utility of the KAMRA corneal inlay.
        Clin Ophthalmol. 2016; 10: 913-919
        • Moarefi M
        • Bafna S
        • Wiley W.
        A review of presbyopia treatment with corneal inlays.
        Ophthalmol Ther. 2017; 6: 55-65
        • Furlan W
        • Montagud-Martinez D
        • Ferrando V
        • Garcia-Delpech S
        • Monsoriu JA.
        A new trifocal corneal inlay for presbyopia.
        Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 6620
        • Moshirfar M
        • Desautels JD
        • Wallace RT
        • Koen N
        • Hoopes PC.
        Comparison of FDA safety and efficacy data for KAMRA and Raindrop corneal inlays.
        Int J Ophthalmol. 2017; 10: 1446-1451
        • Pluma-Jaramago I
        • Rocha-de-Lossada C
        • Rachqani-Anil R
        • Sanchez-Gonzalez JM.
        Small-aperture intracorneal inlay implantation in emmetropic presbyopic patients: a systematic review.
        Eye (Lond). 2022; 36: 1747-1753
        • Moshirfar M
        • Skanchy DF
        • Rosen DB
        • et al.
        Visual prognosis after explantation of small-aperture corneal inlays in presbyopic eyes: a case series.
        Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2019; 8: 129-133
        • Abdul Fattah M
        • Mehanna CJ
        • Antonios R
        • Abiad B
        • Jabbur NS
        • Awwad ST
        Five-year results of combined small-aperture corneal inlay implantation and LASIK for the treatment of hyperopic presbyopic eyes.
        J Refract Surg. 2020; 36: 498-505
        • Fenner B
        • Moriyama AS
        • Mehta JS.
        Inlays and the cornea.
        Exp Eye Res. 2021; 205: 1-11
        • Harb W
        • Chamoun NG
        • Harb GW.
        KAMRA inlay implantation for presbyopia compensation: a retrospective evaluation of patient satisfaction and subjective vision 12-month postoperatively.
        Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2019; 26: 65-70
        • Moshirfar M
        • Albarracin AE
        • Rebenitsch JC
        • Wallace RL
        • Ryan T
        • Birdsong OC.
        Retrospective comparison of visual outcomes after KAMRA corneal inlay implantation with simultaneous PRK or LASIK.
        J Refract Surg. 2018; 34: 310-315
        • Paley G
        • Harocopos GJ.
        Histopathologic analysis of explanted KAMRA corneal inlays demonstrating adherent fibroconnective tissue scar formation.
        Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2019; 5: 440-444
        • Randleman JB
        • Woodward M
        • Lynn MJ
        • Stulting RD.
        Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery.
        Ophthalmology. 2008; 115: 37-50
        • Santhiago MR
        • Giacomin NT
        • Smadja D
        • Bechara SJ.
        Ectasia risk factors in refractive surgery.
        Clin Ophthalmol. 2016; 10: 713-720
        • Jin SX
        • Dackowski E
        • Chuck RS.
        Risk factors for postlaser refractive surgery corneal ectasia.
        Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2020; 31: 288-292
        • Jacob S
        • Kumar DA
        • Agarwal A
        • Agarwal A
        • Aravind R
        • Saijimol AI.
        Preliminary evidence of successful near vision enhancement with a new technique: presbyopic allogenic refractive lenticular (PEARL) corneal inlay using a SMILE lenticule.
        J Refract Surg. 2017; 33: 224-229
        • Liu Y
        • Teo EPW
        • Ang HP
        • et al.
        Biological corneal inlay for presbyopia derived from small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).
        Sci. Rep. 2018; 8: 1831