Posters

Is wavefront analysis appropriate for inlays used in presbyopia?

Poster Details

First Author: V. Feingold UNITED STATES

Co Author(s):                        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To examine the results of patients undergone implantation of Flexivue Microlens for the improvement in near vision and evaluated by I-trace wavefront analyzer.

Setting:

Multicenter study located in USA and Ireland.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of 10 patients aged 40 to 65 who were first screened for acceptable monovision treatment, using contact lens and then undergone implantation of Flexivue Microlens in the non-dominant eye in a pocket. A pocket was created using a femtosecond laser at the depth of 300 microns in the cornea. Patients undergone ray tracing examination using I-Trace (Tracey Technologies, Texas, USA). Evaluation of wavefront, visual acuity and refraction were done before and after surgery and followed for at least 3 months using modified software to allow raw refraction data to be collected and displayed.

Results:

The average improvement of near visual acuity was associated with defocus and negative spherical aberration. The refraction data obtain from wavefront analysis was not consistent and could not be correlated to actual refraction. However, raw refraction analysis of each laser ray within the refraction zone of the added power of the inlay, correlated well with clinical observation and was consistent between multiple measurements. The average residual refraction for distance correlated well with the refraction analysis conducted with the new software.

Conclusions:

Analysis of Flexivue Microlens (corneal inlay) in presbyopic patients using wavefront for correlation with refraction and the power of the lens implanted is not appropriate and should be avoided. Using the new software modification in I-Trace, where raw refraction data is collected is a promising method that should be considered in analyzing this type of implant.

Financial Disclosure:

One or more of the authors gains financially from product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors is employed by a forNONEprofit company with an interest in the subject of the presentation, One or more of the authors has significant investment interest in a competing company, One or more of the authors has significant investment interest in a company producing, developing or supplying product or procedure presented