Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35347289›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2022

Small-aperture intracorneal inlay implantation in emmetropic presbyopic patients: a systematic review.

Inés Pluma-Jaramago, Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada, Rahul Rachwani-Anil, José-María Sánchez-González

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surgical interventions for presbyopia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Presbyopia: Current Perspectives and Prospects for Patients.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Inés Pluma-JaramagoDepartment of Physics of Condensed Matter., Optics Area, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Carlos Rocha-de-LossadaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7464-2493
Rahul Rachwani-AnilDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Antequera, Malaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5901-2469
José-María Sánchez-GonzálezDepartment of Physics of Condensed Matter., Optics Area, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. jsanchez80@us.es.ORCID 0000-0003-0450-7717
Universidad de Sevilla · ESHospital Regional Universitario de Málaga · ESHospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small-aperture corneal inlays, commonly known as KAMRA, are tiny optical devices inserted in the corneal stroma aiming to gain near vision in patients with presbyopia. The purpose of this study was to systematically review case series of small-aperture corneal inlays performed in presbyopic emmetropic patients and to evaluate the visual outcomes of this procedure. This systematic review included 18 articles published between 2011 and 2018, overall studying 2724 eyes from 2691 participants. The mean longest follow-up was 19 months. Results showed that 78.5% of eyes reported an uncorrected near visual acuity of 20/32 or better and 90.50% of eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/25 or better. All patients experienced an improvement in uncorrected near visual acuity with a patient satisfaction ranging between 60% and 90%. The highlighted complications were keratocyte activation leading to corneal stromal haze, epithelial growth, iron deposits and poor distance visual acuity. Explantation was carried out in 101 eyes (3.7%) due to distance vision blurriness, development of epithelial microcysts, incorrect implant placement or hyperopic shift changes. KAMRA demonstrated high efficacy. However, safety and satisfaction rates remain unclear. Despite the low explantation rates reported in the literature, some complications were permanent. The results and conclusions should be taken with caution due to the conflict of interest stated in the reviewed articles.

Indexed as

PresbyopiaProsthesis ImplantationCorneal StromaHumansProspective StudiesProstheses and ImplantsRefraction, OcularTreatment OutcomeVision Disorders

Identifiers

PMID35347289
PMCPMC9391325
OpenAlexW4220852077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.