Pseudo-accommodative Cornea (PAC) for the Correction of Presbyopia



Similar documents
Quality Control in Refractive Surgery

LASIK. Complications. Customized Ablations. Photorefractive Keratectomy. Femtosecond Keratome for LASIK. Cornea Resculpted

VISX Wavefront-Guided LASIK for Correction of Myopic Astigmatism, Hyperopic Astigmatism and Mixed Astigmatism (CustomVue LASIK Laser Treatment)

Common visual problems in older LASIK patients

Richard S. Hoffman, MD. Clinical Associate Professor of Ophthalmology Oregon Health & Science University

When To Laser, When To Implant, When To Do Both

Custom-Q Presbyopic LASIK

5/24/2013 ESOIRS Moderator: Alaa Ghaith, MD. Faculty: Ahmed El Masri, MD Mohamed Shafik, MD Mohamed El Kateb, MD

Life Science Journal 2014;11(9) Cross cylinder Challenging cases and their resultswith Nidek Quest (EC-5000)

Non-surgical Presbyopia correction

RELEX SMILE AND SMILE EXTRA.. OUR 1 YEAR RESULTS AND PATIENTS SURVEY

The pinnacle of refractive performance.

CustomVue Treatments for Monovision in Presbyopic Patients with Low to Moderate Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism

What now, when Presbyopia sets in? Minoru Tomita, MD, PhD Executive Director Shinagawa LASIK Center, Tokyo, JAPAN

Early results at 1 and 3 months after Trans-PRK with AMARIS. a no-touch, one-step treatment

INTRACOR. An excerpt from the presentations by Dr Luis Ruiz and Dr Mike Holzer and the Round Table discussion moderated by Dr Wing-Kwong Chan in the

REFRACTIVE SURGERY OVERVIEW 2007 Lecture notes Professor Charles McGhee PhD FRCOphth

Curriculum Vitate. Name: Mohamed Mostafa Hantera Profile: Male, 40 years, Married and father for 2 Kids. Current location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

A Clinical Study of a Hydrogel Multifocal Contact Lens

Comparison Combined LASIK Procedure for Ametropic Presbyopes and Planned Dual Interface for Post-LASIK Presbyopes Using Small Aperture Corneal Inlay

Asymmetrical Supracor for hyperopic presbyopes: short term results

ICRS implantation with the Femto LDV laser in stabilized KC patients: 6 months results

Comparison of Higher Order Aberrations and Contrast Sensitivity After LASIK, Verisyse Phakic IOL, and Array Multifocal IOL

Conductive keratoplasty (CK) utilizes radiofrequency energy. Original Article

FIRST EXPERIENCE WITH THE ZEISS FEMTOSECOND SYSTEM IN CONJUNC- TION WITH THE MEL 80 IN THE US

Aberrations caused by decentration in customized laser refractive surgery

Wavefront-guided Custom Ablation for Myopia Using the NIDEK NAVEX Laser System

Refractive Surgery. Evolution of Refractive Error Correction

Providing Optimal Optics For Your Astigmatic Cataract Patients. While the cornea remains relatively stable and prolate throughout life

Presbyopia Treatment by Monocular Peripheral PresbyLASIK

Wavefront-guided Excimer Laser Vision Correction After Multifocal IOL Implantation

TABLE OF CONTENTS: LASER EYE SURGERY CONSENT FORM

Techniques for Enhancing Cataract Surgery Patients with Residual Refractive Error. Director of Cornea Center For Excellence In Eye Care Miami, FL

What is Refractive Error?

Cataract Surgery after Myopic Refractive Procedures. Ray Guard Eye Center Huang Wei-Jen, MD

Despite being a relatively safe and

Surgical Advances in Keratoconus. Keratoconus. Innovations in Ophthalmology. New Surgical Advances. Diagnosis of Keratoconus. Scheimpflug imaging

Premium Lenses in Problematic Patients

TRUSTED LASIK SURGEONS. Eye Conditions Correctable by Refractive Surgical Procedures

Faster recovery of visual acuity at all distances

True Solutions for Presbyopia With Laser Technology Capturing the growing presbyopia market sector.

Comparison of Residual Stromal Bed Thickness and Flap Thickness at LASIK and Post-LASIK Enhancement in Femtosecond Laser-Created Flaps

What Laser Vision Correction Means to the Military

The effect of corneal wavefront aberrations on corneal pseudo-accommodation

Curtin G. Kelley, M.D. Director of Vision Correction Surgery Arena Eye Surgeons Associate Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology The Ohio State

The Laser Eye Center s surgeons are sub-specialized in both cornea and refractive surgery, and are among the region s most experienced surgeons.

REFRACTIVE ERROR AND SURGERIES IN THE UNITED STATES

LASIK in the Presbyopic Age Group

THE GUIDE TO REFRACTIVE LENS EXCHANGE SEE CLEARLY.

Physics 1230: Light and Color

How To Implant A Keraring

Refractive Surgery Issue. Inlays and Presbyopia: On the Horizon P. 24. Crack a SMILE or Raise a Flap? P. 30. LASIK Xtra: Who Should Get It? P.

VA high quality, complications low with phakic IOL

Challenging Refractive Surgery Cases. Vance Thompson, MD, FACS Refractive and Cataract Surgery Vance Thompson Vision Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Presbyopia modern surgical treatments. Johan Lønsmann Poulsen, Euroeyes

refractive surgery a closer look

IntraLase and LASIK: Risks and Complications

How To Treat Eye Sight Problems With Eye Care

Welcome to the Verisyse Seminar

Refractive Surgery Education and Informed Consent

ADDENDUM to the Informed Consent for Cataract Surgery with Intraocular Lens Implant

Tucson Eye Care, PC. Informed Consent for Cataract Surgery And/Or Implantation of an Intraocular Lens

Premium IOL Implantation Calculations in Post-LASIK Cataract Eyes Using ASCRS IOL Calculator

REFRACTIVE SURGERY REVISITED. Sightline Ophthalmic Associates February 22, 2015 Louis J. Phillips, OD, FAAO


Windsor Laser Eye Institute.

Dr. Hijab Mehta - MS, DOMS, FCPS Dr. S. Natarajan DO Dr. Hitendra Mehta MS

Introducing TOPOGRAPHY-GUIDED REFRACTIVE SURGERY

Surgeon Presentation

OMNI EYE SPECIALISTS. The Intraocular Lens

LASIK & Refractive Surgery

Your one stop vision centre Our ophthalmic centre offers comprehensive eye management, which includes medical,

Consent for LASIK (Laser In Situ Keratomileusis) Retreatment

INFORMED CONSENT TO HAVE LASIK

LASIK/PRK following previous eye Surgery

Is LASIK Good Enough? 75% of flights have a CL wearer 53% of all EVAs have either a spectacle or CL wearer Microbial keratitis has occurred

Informed Consent for Cataract Surgery and/or Implantation of an Intraocular Lens (IOL)

SupraCor Lasik Treatment for Presbyopia

LASIK SURGERY IN AL- NASSIRYA CITY A CLINICOSTATISTICAL STUDY

Minimally Invasive Surgery: Femtosecond Lasers and Other Innovative Microsurgical Techniques

INFORMED CONSENT FOR PHAKIC LENS IMPLANT SURGERY

Risk Factors for Night Vision Complaints after LASIK for Myopia

Incision along Steep Axis

PresbyMAX For visibly younger eyesight

Informed Consent for Refractive Lens Exchange (Clear Lens Extraction)

By Dr Waleed Al-Tuwairqi, MD Dr Omnia Sherif, MD Ophthalmology Consultants, Elite Medical & Surgical Center Riyadh -KSA.

Your Prescription for a New Beginning

Increasing cost of health care 2010 Prevalence of Cataract Patients: 24.4 M (NEI/NIH) of patients age 40+

Refractive Errors & Correction

Dr. Booth received his medical degree from the University of California: San Diego and his bachelor of science from Stanford University.

Our Commitment To You

Overview of Refractive Surgery

Transcription:

Pseudo-accommodative Cornea (PAC) for the Correction of Presbyopia Alaa El Danasoury, FRCS Magrabi Hospitals & Centers

Surgical options for the Correction of Presbyopia Monovision Reversal of Presbyopia: Anterior Ciliary Sclerotomy Anterior Ciliary Sclerotomy with silicone plugs Scleral expansion segments Laser Presbyopia Reversal (LAPR) Pseudoaccommodation: Intracorneal Lenses AC phakic IOL (Baikoff) Clear lens exchange with Multifocal / Accommodative IOL Pseudoaccommodative LASIK

I - Surgical Reversal of Presbyopia 1- Silicone Expansion Plug Implant Regression is common. Possible extrusion. FB sensation. Time consuming. SEP

I - Surgical Reversal of Presbyopia 2 - Scleral Spacing Procedure SSP Controversial Time consuming Long term results?

II- Pseudo-accommodation 1- Intracorneal lenses Decentration Flap Haze

II Pseudo-accommodation 2- CLE with Accommodative IOL

II Pseudo-accommodation 3- Vivarte Presbyopic lens Distant Near Distant

II - Pseudo-accommodation 4- LASIK Multifocal Cornea o Central Myopic Island o Paracentral Myopic Ring o Decentered Myopic Island o Controlled Multizone Aspheric LASIK

Multifocal Cornea Decentered Myopic Island Central Myopic Island Courtsey, A. Telandro

Multifocal Cornea Concerns Safety: Loss of Distant BSCVA Loss of Contrast Sensitivity Stability 6 & 12 Months data Efficacy: Near vision with distant correction Patient satisfaction Subjective questionnaire:

Evaluation of Pseudo- Accommodative LASIK Study I: (MZ vs Conv LASIK) Assess safety Randomized Bilateral Comparative study Multizone vs Conventional LASIK Study II: (MZ LASIK for presbyopia) Assess the efficacy, predictability & stability for near vision Bilateral non-randomized non-comparative study

Multizone vs Conventional LASIK Inclusion Criteria Age: 21 to 36 yrs Baseline SE: -1.00 to 9.00 D Stable Refraction SCVA: 20/20 or better. Mesopic pupil diameter: < 7 mm.

Multizone vs Conventional LASIK Demographics 30 consecutive patients 60% females Mean age: 29 ± 5.4 yrs (21 to 37 yrs) Mean baseline SE: Multizone Group: -4.28 ± 1.9 D (-1.64 to 8.64 D) Conventional Group: -4.20 ± 1.9 D (-1.75 to 8.00 D) 22 patients completed 6 months follow up.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Predictability 22 patients, 1 Month 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Multizone Conventional

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Predictability 22 patients, 6 Months (Enhancements included) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Multizone Conventional

Enhancement Rate Multizone: 40.9% (9 / 22) Conventional: 4.5% (1 /22)

UCVA at 6 Months (Enhancements Included) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20/20 or better 20/30 or better 20/40 or better MZ Conv

Loss & Gain of SCVA 22 patients, 6 Months 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2 1 0-1 -2 MZ Conv

Contrast-Sensitivity Average Curve Multizone Conventional

Contrast-Sensitivity with Glare Average Curve Multizone Conventional

Conclusion Mutizone Aspheric LASIK is: As effective as conventional LASIK for distant correction Does not compromise CS Does not increase night glare Conventional nomogram needs adjustment

Pseudo-Accommodative Cornea (PAC) for the Correction of Presbyopia Alaa El Danasoury, FRCS Magrabi Hospitals & Centers

Aim of the Study Assess efficacy, predictability, stability & safety of Multizone Aspheric LASIK to create Pseudo-Accommodative Cornea (PAC) for correction of presbyopia

Study Design Prospective Bilateral Non-comparative, Non-randomized Consecutive patients Single Center

Inclusion Criteria Presbyopia. Candidate for Bilateral LASIK. Manifest Refraction (-6.0 to +4.0 D) Refractive Cylinder: 2.00 D or less. Distant SCVA: 20/25 or better. Near Add: 1.0 D or more. Near SCVA: J1 or better.

Demographics Hyperopic Group 54 eyes of 27 patients. 59.3 % were males. Mean age: 50 ± 4.9 yrs. Range: 40 to 62 yrs. Follow up rate: 1 month: 46 eyes (85.2%) 3 months: 38 eyes (70.4%) 6 months: 16 eyes (29.6%) 12 months: 8 eyes (14.8%) Myopic Group 50 eyes of 25 patients. 68% were males. Mean age: 46.0 ± 4.3 yrs. Range: 40 to 56 yrs. Follow up rate: 1 month: 40 eyes (80%) 3 months: 46 eyes 92%) 6 months: 34 eyes (68%) 12 months: 8 eyes (16%)

Age Distribution 100% month (eyes) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 48% 72% Hyp (54) Myo (50) 40% 30% 37% 28% 20% 10% 0% 15% 0-9 10-19Y 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 Age Distribution - Percent Datagraph

Presbyopia Patient Groups Primary hyperopic presbyopes hyperopia plus presbyopia treatment Primary myopic presbyopes treated for myopia and presbyopia

Methods Step 1: Correction of myopic error 2 or 3 concentric zones at 4,5,6 mm with 2 mm TZ Step 2: Correction of presbyopia ± hyperopia Large hyperopic ablation zone at 7.0 / 9.5 mm. Step 3: Reversal of the induced myopia Two central 3.5 and 4.0 mm with 1 mm TZ.

NIDEK PAC Calculator

Baseline Refraction Hyperopic Group: SE Refraction: 1.87 ± 0.91 D (0.38 to 4.00 D) Near Add: 1.94 ± 0.2 D (1.75 to 2.25 D) Myopic Group: SE Refraction: -2.87 ± 1.51 D (-5.75 to 0.25 D) Near Add: 1.67 ± 0.44 D (1.00 to 2.50 D)

Predictability - Hyperopia Group Enhancement Rate: 5.6% (1/18 eyes) Achieved [D] 5.0 18 eyes 4.5 4.0 overcorrected 6 months 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 ±0.5 D: 15 eyes (83.3%) ±1.0 D: 17 eyes (94.4%) ±1.5 D: 18 eyes (100%) 1.5 y = -0.00x 2 + 1.18x - 0.09 1.0 0.5 undercorrected Datagraph 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Attempted delta SR equiv. [D]

Predictability Myopia Group Enhancement Rate: 35.3% (12/34 eyes) Achieved [D] 34 Eyes at 6 Mos 6.0 5.5 5.0 overcorrected 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 y = 0.01x 2 + 0.85x - 0.05 ±0.5 D: 24 eyes (70.5%) ±1.0 D: 33 eyes (97.1%) Datagraph 1.0 0.5 undercorrected 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Attempted delta SR equiv. [D]

Stability Hyperopic Group 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.87 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00-0.32-0.27-0.61-0.41 pre op 1 w 1 m 3 m 6 m -0.50-1.00-1.50 Datagraph -2.00 54 30 44 36 16 1. STABILITY: Achieved Change in Refr. over Time

0,50 0,00 Stability Myopic Group -0,39-0,70-0,73-0,57 pre op -0,50 1 w 1 m 3 m 6 m -1,00-1,50-2,00-2,50-2,87-3,00-3,50-4,00-4,50-5,00 50 28 40 46 34 1. STABILITY: Achieved Change in Refr. over Time Datagraph

Distant UCVA Hyperopic Group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 58% 85% 81% 90% 92% 90% month (eyes) 3 m (36) 6 m (20) 50% 40% 40% 30% 25% 20% 10% 0% 20/12 or better 3% 5% 20/15 or better 20/20 or better 20/25 or better 20/30 or better Cumulative UCVA - Percent 20/40 or better 8% 10% 20/50 or worse Datagraph

Distant UCVA Myopic Group 100% 97% month (eyes) 90% 85% 88% 85% 80% 70% 60% 59% 68% 3 m (46) 6 m (34) 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 20/12 or better 9% 2% 20/15 or better 22% 26% 20/20 or better 20/25 or better 20/30 or better Cumulative UCVA - Percent 20/40 or better 15% 3% 20/50 or worse Datagraph

Safety Hyperopic Group 100% month (eyes) 90% 80% 70% 3 (36) 6 (16) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 44% 31% 39% 56% 10% 0% 8% 6% 6%6% 3% lost > 2 lost 2 lost 1 unchanged gained 1 gained 2 gained > 2 2. SAFETY: Change in BSCVA - Percent Datagraph

Safety Myopic Group 100% month (eyes) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 70% 62% 3 (46) 6 (34) 30% 20% 10% 13% 24% 17% 15% 0% lost > 2 lost 2 lost 1 unchanged gained 1 gained 2 gained > 2 2. SAFETY: Change in BSCVA - Percent Datagraph

Contrast Sensitivity Hyperopic Group

Contrast Sensitivity 2.20 Myopic Group 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.65 1.68 1.69 1.89 1.92 1.91 1.57 1.56 1.60 1.54 month pre op (42) 1 m (36) 3 m (26) 6 m (24) 1.20 1.00 1.18 1.11 1.13 1.08 0.80 0.60 0.40 A (3cpd) B (6cpd) C (12cpd) D (18cpd) Spatial Frequency [cycles/degree] Datagraph

CS with glare Hyperopic Group 2.20 2.00 month 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.54 1.55 1.50 1.77 1.79 1.74 1.72 1.48 1.43 1.42 pre op (42) 1 m (26) 3 m (12) 6 m (14) 1.20 1.00 1.11 1.10 0.99 1.02 0.80 0.60 0.40 A (3cpd) B (6cpd) C (12cpd) D (18cpd) Spatial Frequency [cycles/degree] Datagraph

CS with glare Myopic Group 2.20 2.00 month 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.53 1.50 1.54 1.79 1.74 1.76 1.72 1.48 1.43 1.41 1.44 pre op (42) 1 m (36) 3 m (26) 6 m (23) 1.20 1.00 1.07 1.08 1.01 0.80 0.60 0.40 A (3cpd) B (6cpd) C (12cpd) D (18cpd) Spatial Frequency [cycles/degree] Datagraph

Near Visual Acuity Without Correction With Distant Correction With Near Correction

Near UCVA Hyperopic Group 100% 90% 80% 81% 94% 100% 92% 88% month (eyes) pre op (50) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 33% 44% 56% 50% 67% 63% 3 m (36) 6 m (16) 20% 10% 0% 12% 8% 4% J1+ or better J1 or better J2 or better J3 or better J5 or better J7 or worse Cumulative near UCVA - Percent Datagraph

Near UCVA Myopic Group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 47% 63%62% 93% 91% 93%94% 83% 84% 74% 74% 53% month (eyes) pre op (43) 3 m (46) 6 m (34) 40% 30% 28% 33% 21% 20% 10% 0% 16% 7%6% J1+ or better J1 or better J2 or better J3 or better J5 or better J7 or worse Cumulative near UCVA - Percent Datagraph

Near UCVA with Distant Correction Hyperopic Group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 22% 31% 36% 44% 50% 69% 38% 81% 94% 62% 100% 94% 38% month (eyes) pre op (50) 3 m (36) 6 m (16) 10% 4% 6% 6% 6% 0% J1+ or better J1 or better J2 or better J3 or better J5 or better J7 or worse Cumulative near UCVA with far correction - Percent J3 or better: BL 38%, 3 Mos: 81%, 6 Mos: 94% Datagraph

Near UCVA with Distant Correction Myopic Group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 41% 41% 39% 55% 59% 50% 73% 76% 84% 93% 91% month (eyes) pre op (44) 3 m (44) 6 m (34) 30% 20% 10% 18%18% 20% 16% 7% 9% 0% J1+ or better J1 or better J2 or better J3 or better J5 or better J7 or worse Cumulative near UCVA with far correction - Percent Datagraph J3 or better: BL; 50%, 3 Mos: 73%, 6 Mos;76%

Near VA with Distant Correction Myopic Group Percent of Total Eyes 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 7.1 9.5-2 L -1 L No Change 59.5 + 1 L or more 33.3 + 2 L or more 26.2 + 3 L or more 2.4 + 5L or more Loss & gain of Distant Corrected Near VA

Change in Near BSCVA Hyperopic Group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 94% 78% 19% 3% 6% lost > 2 lost 2 lost 1 unchanged gained 1 gained 2 gained > 2 Change in near BSCVA - Percent month (eyes) 3 (32) 6 (16) Datagraph

Change in Near BSCVA Myopic Group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5% 13% 93% 88% lost > 2 lost 2 lost 1 unchanged gained 1 gained 2 gained > 2 3% Change in near BSCVA - Percent month (eyes) 3 (40) 6 (32) Datagraph

HO RMS 1&6 Month after Surgery HO RMS [µm] 0,90 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 Myo Group Hyp Group 0,56 0,46 0,57 0,81 0,56 0,78 0,20 0,10 0,00 pre OP 1 month 6 month

Strehl Ratio 1&6 Month after Surgery 0,12 0,10 0,10 Myo Group Hyp Group Strehl Ratio 0,08 0,06 0,04 0,07 0,07 0,04 0,05 0,03 0,02 0,00 pre OP 1 month 6 month

Q-Value (Asphericity) 1&6 Month after Surgery 0,40 0,20 0,21 0,08 0,29 0,19 unchanged Q Value 0,00-0,20 pre OP 1 month 6 month -0,40-0,60-0,80 Myo Group Hyp Group -0,39 beocmes more prolate! -0,69

Hyperopic

Myopia

Patient Questionnaire Are you using Spectacles for reading your newspapers? Hyperopes (9 patients) Never: 7 (77.8%) Occasionally: 1 (11.1%) Always: 1 (11.1%) Myopes (17 patients) 13 (76.5%) 3 (17.6%) 1(5.9%)

Conclusion Multizone Multifocal LASIK: Effective in correction of far & near vision. Does not affect the quality of distant vision. Nomograms need refinement Larger series and longer follow up is needed.

Questions to Answer The theoretical 'peripheral near zone' model needs to be refined only the myopia/presbyopia group shows a peripheral near zone on OPD maps postop most of the hyp/presbyopia cases have a central near zone on OPD maps Long term stability Effect of pupil size on near vision Best ablation profile to minimize spherical aberrations

Thank you for your attention!