Comparison of a hydrogel corneal inlay and monovision laser in situ keratomileusis in presbyopic patients: focus on visual performance and optical quality

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the visual performance and optical quality after Raindrop Near Vision Inlay implantation or monovision LASIK for the correction of presbyopia.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective case-series study, patients previously treated in the nondominant eye with monovision LASIK were compared with patients previously implanted with Raindrop Near Vision Inlay. The study enrolled 16 inlay and 15 monovision LASIK patients. Uncorrected near visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, binocular stereopsis, patient satisfaction, and patient task performance were assessed.

Results

Postoperatively, the mean spherical equivalent was −0.66 D (0.78 SD) for the inlay group and −1.03 D (0.56 SD) for the monovision LASIK group. Monocularly, at uncorrected near distances, 60% of inlay patients and 47% of monovision LASIK patients achieved ≥20/20. Monocularly, at uncorrected far distances, 75% of inlay patients and 40% of monovision LASIK patients achieved ≥20/32 vision. Binocularly, at near distances, 79% of inlay patients and 53% of monovision LASIK patients obtained ≥20/20 vision. All patients achieved ≥20/20 binocularly for distance. On average, inlay patients obtained 98 seconds of arc and monovision LASIK patients obtained 286 seconds of arc for stereopsis. Most (79%) of the inlay patients and 66% of monovision LASIK patients were satisfied with their near vision, while 86% of inlay patients and 67% of monovision LASIK patients were satisfied with their distance vision.

Conclusion

Patients receiving corneal inlays demonstrated better near and distance visual acuities, binocular stereopsis, task performance, and satisfaction, when compared to patients treated with monovision LASIK.

Keywords:

• presbyopia
• corneal inlays
• monovision
• laser in situ keratomileusis
• LASIK
• Raindrop Near Vision Inlay

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by ReVision Optics, Inc., Lake Forest, CA, USA.

Disclosure

Dr Verdoorn has served as a consultant for ReVision Optics, Inc. The author reports no other conflicts of interest in this work.