J Korean Med Assoc.  2014 Jun;57(6):520-524. 10.5124/jkma.2014.57.6.520.

Surgical treatment of presbyopia

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. joon@amc.seoul.kr

Abstract

Presbyopia is the progressive reduction in the ability to focus on near objects, and as an age-related condition, the prevalence of presbyopia is expected to increase with the aging of society. A number of corneal surgical procedures are available for the treatment of presbyopia, including monovision laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)/laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK), conductive keratoplasty, presbyopic LASIK, and corneal inlay. Implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs), such as refractive/diffractive IOLs or accommodating IOLs, is also an option. Despite the variety of treatment options available, a perfect solution has yet to be developed and patients may present with visual or optical complications such as halos, glare, or decreased contrast sensitivity. As such, careful selection and customization of treatment is essential, based on patients' individual needs and requirements for vision.

Keyword

Presbyopia; Monovision; Laser in situ keratomileusis; Multifocal intraocular lens; Corneal inlay

MeSH Terms

Aging
Contrast Sensitivity
Corneal Transplantation
Glare
Humans
Inlays
Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ
Lenses, Intraocular
Presbyopia*
Prevalence

Cited by  1 articles

Surgical treatment of presbyopia I
Joo Hyun
J Korean Med Assoc. 2019;62(12):616-622.    doi: 10.5124/jkma.2019.62.12.616.


Reference

1. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Ho SM, Wong R, Schlenther G, Cronje S, Burnett A, Papas E, Naidoo KS, Frick KD. Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126:1731–1739.
Article
2. Torricelli AA, Junior JB, Santhiago MR, Bechara SJ. Surgical management of presbyopia. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012; 6:1459–1466.
Article
3. Waring GO 4th, Berry DE. Advances in the surgical correc-tion of presbyopia. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2013; 53:129–152.
Article
4. Goldberg DB. Comparison of myopes and hyperopes after laser in situ keratomileusis monovision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:1695–1701.
Article
5. Miranda D, Krueger RR. Monovision laser in situ keratomileusis for pre-presbyopic and presbyopic patients. J Refract Surg. 2004; 20:325–328.
Article
6. Goldberg DB. Laser in situ keratomileusis monovision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:1449–1455.
Article
7. Sippel KC, Jain S, Azar DT. Monovision achieved with excimer laser refractive surgery. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2001; 41:91–101.
Article
8. Jain S, Ou R, Azar DT. Monovision outcomes in presbyopic individuals after refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001; 108:1430–1433.
Article
9. McDonald MB, Hersh PS, Manche EE, Maloney RK, Davidorf J, Sabry M. Conductive Keratoplasty United States Investigators Group. Conductive keratoplasty for the correction of low to moderate hyperopia: US clinical trial 1-year results on 355 eyes. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:1978–1989.
Article
10. Stahl JE. Conductive keratoplasty for presbyopia: 3-year results. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:905–910.
Article
11. Ehrlich JS, Manche EE. Regression of effect over long-term follow-up of conductive keratoplasty to correct mild to moderate hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:1591–1596.
Article
12. Alio JL, Amparo F, Ortiz D, Moreno L. Corneal multifocality with excimer laser for presbyopia correction. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009; 20:264–271.
Article
13. Reinstein DZ, Couch DG, Archer TJ. LASIK for hyperopic astigmatism and presbyopia using micro-monovision with the Carl Zeiss Meditec MEL80 platform. J Refract Surg. 2009; 25:37–58.
Article
14. Menassa N, Fitting A, Auffarth GU, Holzer MP. Visual outcomes and corneal changes after intrastromal femtosecond laser correction of presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012; 38:765–773.
Article
15. Dexl AK, Seyeddain O, Riha W, Hohensinn M, Hitzl W, Grabner G. Reading performance after implantation of a small-aperture corneal inlay for the surgical correction of presbyopia: two-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:525–531.
Article
16. Tomita M, Kanamori T, Waring GO 4th, Yukawa S, Yamamoto T, Sekiya K, Tsuru T. Simultaneous corneal inlay implantation and laser in situ keratomileusis for presbyopia in patients with hyperopia, myopia, or emmetropia: six-month results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012; 38:495–506.
Article
17. Chayet A, Barragan Garza E. Combined hydrogel inlay and laser in situ keratomileusis to compensate for presbyopia in hyperopic patients: one-year safety and efficacy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39:1713–1721.
Article
18. Limnopoulou AN, Bouzoukis DI, Kymionis GD, Panagopoulou SI, Plainis S, Pallikaris AI, Feingold V, Pallikaris IG. Visual outcomes and safety of a refractive corneal inlay for presbyopia using femtosecond laser. J Refract Surg. 2013; 29:12–18.
Article
19. Munoz G, Albarran-Diego C, Cervino A, Ferrer-Blasco T, Garcia-Lazaro S. Visual and optical performance with the ReZoom multifocal intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012; 22:356–362.
Article
20. Venter JA, Pelouskova M, Collins BM, Schallhorn SC, Hannan SJ. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction in 9366 eyes using a refractive segmented multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39:1477–1484.
Article
21. Alfonso JF, Fernandez-Vega L, Blazquez JI, Montes-Mico R. Visual function comparison of 2 aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012; 38:242–248.
Article
22. Alio JL, Pinero DP, Plaza-Puche AB, Chan MJ. Visual outcomes and optical performance of a monofocal intraocular lens and a new-generation multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:241–250.
Article
23. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Javaloy J, Ayala MJ. Comparison of the visual and intraocular optical performance of a refractive multifocal IOL with rotational asymmetry and an apodized diffractive multifocal IOL. J Refract Surg. 2012; 28:100–105.
Article
24. Soda M, Yaguchi S. Effect of decentration on the optical performance in multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmologica. 2012; 227:197–204.
Article
25. Mojzis P, Pena-Garcia P, Liehneova I, Ziak P, Alio JL. Outcomes of a new diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014; 40:60–69.
Article
26. Madrid-Costa D, Ruiz-Alcocer J, Ferrer-Blasco T, Garcia-Lazaro S, Montes-Mico R. Optical quality differences between three multifocal intraocular lenses: bifocal low add, bifocal moderate add, and trifocal. J Refract Surg. 2013; 29:749–754.
Article
27. Epstein RH, Liu ET, Werner L, Kohnen T, Kaproth OK, Mamalis N. Capsulorhexis phimosis with anterior flexing of an accommodating IOL: case report and histopathological analyses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014; 40:148–152.
Article
28. Menapace R, Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Leydolt-Koeppl Ch. Accommodating intraocular lenses: a critical review of present and future concepts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007; 245:473–489.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JKMA
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr