Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31598513›Full record

ArticleMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2019

Visual Prognosis after Explantation of Small-Aperture Corneal Inlays in Presbyopic Eyes: A Case Series.

Majid Moshirfar, David F Skanchy, David B Rosen, Madeline B Heiland, Harry Y Liu, Benjamin Buckner, Aaron T Gomez, Yasmyne C Ronquillo, Tim Melton, Phillip C Jr Hoopes

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Majid MoshirfarJohn A. Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
David F SkanchyDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W.K. Kellogg Eye Center, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
David B RosenCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, the University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Madeline B HeilandCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, the University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Harry Y LiuHealth Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA.
Benjamin BucknerHoopes Durrie Rivera Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.
Aaron T GomezRio Grande Valley School of Medicine, University of Texas, Edinburg, TX, USA.
Yasmyne C RonquilloHoopes Durrie Rivera Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.
Tim MeltonHoopes Durrie Rivera Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.
Phillip C Jr HoopesHoopes Durrie Rivera Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.
Hoopes Vision · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to report visual prognosis after explantation of a small-aperture corneal inlay used for the treatment of presbyopia. This is a retrospective case series conducted at a single site in Draper, Utah, USA (Hoopes Vision). Medical records of 176 patients who had received a small-aperture corneal inlay (KAMRA™, AcuFocus Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) were reviewed. Patients who had undergone explantation of the device were identified. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) were measured pre-implantation, post-implantation, pre-explantation, and post-explantation of the inlay. Ten eyes from ten patients were included in this study. The explantation rate was 5.7% over 31 months, with blurry vision as the most common complaint. After explantation, six patients achieved pre-implantation UDVA, and six achieved pre-implantation UNVA. Eight of nine patients who underwent final manifest refraction achieved pre-operative CDVA. All patients had residual donut-shaped corneal haze in the stroma at the previous position of the inlay. All patients experienced improvement in haze with 20% experiencing complete resolution. The degree of stromal haze was not related to the duration of implantation. Of the subset of patients who underwent explantation of their small-aperture corneal inlay, there was persistent loss of CDVA in 10%. The majority of patients experienced some level of residual stromal haze, which may contribute to deficits in UNVA and CDVA in few patients. A hyperopic shift induced by the corneal inlay may contribute to the blurry vision these patients experienced; there was a reduction of this shift post-explantation. While this device is removable, patients should expect some post-explantation changes such as residual haze with a small subset experiencing persistent deficits in CDVA.

Indexed as

CorneaExplantationKAMRAPresbyopiaSmall Aperture Inlay

Identifiers

PMID31598513
PMCPMC6778461
OpenAlexW2990223270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.