ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
Clinical utility of the KAMRA corneal inlay.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Small-aperture intracorneal inlay implantation in emmetropic presbyopic patients: a systematic review.Eye (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Refractive corneal inlay implantation outcomes: a preliminary systematic review.International ophthalmology · 2022Pooled it
- Therapeutic Value and Optical Performance of Small-Aperture Intraocular Implants: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Fourier tools for the evaluation of refractive multifocal designs.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Review of Presbyopia Treatment with Corneal Inlays and New Developments.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Review
- Experimental Model of Far Temporal Field Negative Dysphotopsia Generated in Phakic Eyes.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Long-term changes in keratometry and refraction after small aperture corneal inlay implantation.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Article
- Clinical outcomes of combined versus separate carbachol and brimonidine drops in correcting presbyopia.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2016Article
- Correction of presbyopia: An integrated update for the practical surgeon.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of presbyopia has been the focus of much scientific and clinical research over recent years, not least due to an increasingly aging population but also the desire for spectacle independence. Many lens and nonlens-based approaches have been investigated, and with advances in biomaterials and improved surgical methods, removable corneal inlays have been developed. One such development is the KAMRA™ inlay where a small entrance pupil is exploited to create a pinhole-type effect that increases the depth of focus and enables improvement in near visual acuity. Short- and long-term clinical studies have all reported significant improvement in near and intermediate vision compared to preoperative measures following monocular implantation (nondominant eye), with a large proportion of patients achieving Jaeger (J) 2 to J1 (~0.00 logMAR to ~0.10 logMAR) at the final follow-up. Although distance acuity is reduced slightly in the treated eye, binocular visual acuity and function remain very good (mean 0.10 logMAR or better). The safety of the inlay is well established and easily removable, and although some patients have developed corneal changes, these are clinically insignificant and the incidence appears to reduce markedly with advancements in KAMRA design, implantation technique, and femtosecond laser technology. This review aims to summarize the currently published peer-reviewed studies on the safety and efficacy of the KAMRA inlay and discusses the surgical and clinical outcomes with respect to the patient's visual function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.