SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2022
Refractive corneal inlay implantation outcomes: a preliminary systematic review.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complications of Small Aperture Intracorneal Inlays: A Literature Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- New insights in presbyopia: impact of correction strategies.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Review
- Review of Presbyopia Treatment with Corneal Inlays and New Developments.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo review all case series of refractive corneal inlay implantation: Flexivue (Presbia, Netherlands), Invue (BioVision, Brügg, Switzerland) and Icolens (Neoptics, Hünenberg, Switzerland) performed in presbyopia patients and to evaluate the reported visual outcomes. In addition, our aim is to provide assessment for complications and to report the satisfaction rates.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were consulted using "refractive corneal inlay", "Flexivue Inlay", "Invue Inlay" and "Icolens inlay" as keywords. 147 articles were found, and they were assessed considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After filtering, this systemic review included ten articles, published between 2011 and 2020.
results308 eyes from 308 participants were enrolled in this systematic review. Mean maximum follow-up was 13.9 months. Nine of the ten case series included used femtosecond laser for the corneal pocket creation. Mean pocket depth was 293.75 µm. 77.5% of the eyes reported a postoperative uncorrected near visual acuity of 20/32 or better, and 19.20% of the inlay-implanted eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. The most prominent complications were halos, pain, photophobia, and poor distance visual acuity. 27 eyes (8.7%) had to be explanted due to complications, such as near-distance spectacle dependence or blurred distance vision.
conclusionRefractive corneal inlay outcomes demonstrated high efficacy, safety, and satisfaction rates. Furthermore, it is a reversible technique. However, the findings must be viewed with caution due potential conflict of interest. Further research with higher sample size is needed to validate these findings.
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.