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:Subscribe to Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Clinical utility of the KAMRA corneal inlay.Clin Ophthalmol. 2016; 10: 913-919
- A review of presbyopia treatment with corneal inlays.Ophthalmol Ther. 2017; 6: 55-65
- A new trifocal corneal inlay for presbyopia.Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 6620
- Comparison of FDA safety and efficacy data for KAMRA and Raindrop corneal inlays.Int J Ophthalmol. 2017; 10: 1446-1451
- Small-aperture intracorneal inlay implantation in emmetropic presbyopic patients: a systematic review.Eye (Lond). 2022; 36: 1747-1753
- Visual prognosis after explantation of small-aperture corneal inlays in presbyopic eyes: a case series.Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2019; 8: 129-133
- 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
- Inlays and the cornea.Exp Eye Res. 2021; 205: 1-11
- 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
- Retrospective comparison of visual outcomes after KAMRA corneal inlay implantation with simultaneous PRK or LASIK.J Refract Surg. 2018; 34: 310-315
- Histopathologic analysis of explanted KAMRA corneal inlays demonstrating adherent fibroconnective tissue scar formation.Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2019; 5: 440-444
- Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery.Ophthalmology. 2008; 115: 37-50
- Ectasia risk factors in refractive surgery.Clin Ophthalmol. 2016; 10: 713-720
- Risk factors for postlaser refractive surgery corneal ectasia.Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2020; 31: 288-292
- 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
- Biological corneal inlay for presbyopia derived from small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).Sci. Rep. 2018; 8: 1831
Published online: December 01, 2022
Accepted: November 7, 2022
Received in revised form: October 24, 2022
Received: August 7, 2022
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
© 2022 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.