Corneal Inlay Guidance: Comparative Study of 2 Implants
Purpose
A study to compare two corneal inlays used to treat presbyopia: Raindrop Near Vision Inlay (ReVision Optics) and Kamra inlay (Acufocus).
Methods
Twenty-five (25) monocularly implanted patients were enrolled into this study (Kamra Inlay Group: n=15, Raindrop Inlay Group: n=10). Two different femtosecond lasers were used: Ziemer Z6 and Victus workstation. Flap and pocket thicknesses ranged from 150 microns (Raindrop) to 200 microns (Kamra). Refractive corrections were treated with the 217P excimer laser (Technolas). Postoperative measurements included: visual acuities, patients questionnaires, topography, Scheimpflug images, corneal aberrometry and thickness epithelium.
Results
Both inlays were easily implanted, Raindrop did not require additional centration instrument. The Raindrop group showed faster acuity recovery for near and distance, reaching stability by 1M. At 6M, mean monocular UNVA was better in the Raindrop group (Raindrop 0.82 vs Kamra 0.68). Both groups achieved mean binocular UDVA of 1.0. Mesopic activities (i.e. driving, reading) were easier in the Raindrop group. Two inlays were explanted in the Kamra group and none in the Raindrop group.
Conclusion
Raindrop showed better near vision, easier mesopic functionality and faster visual recovery time when compared to Kamra. Both groups performed well binocularly at distance. In my experience, Kamra and Raindrop inlays appear to be viable options in the treatment of presbyopia.