Restore Your Near Vision -- Without Reading Glasses
Cornea Inlay Improves Near Vision in People With Presbyopia
WebMD News Archive
The Study continued...
Of the approximately 450 people who have been followed for six months to date:
- Those in their 40s could read four additional lines on a 13- to 15-line eye chart, on average. People in their 50s could read five more lines, and those in their 60s could read seven additional lines.
"Basically, they could only read headlines before the procedure," says AAO spokesman James Salz, MD, clinical professor of ophthalmology at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
"Afterward, they could read most things, except the very small print on a medicine bottle," he says. Salz reviewed the results for WebMD.
- About 90% of people in all three age groups said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the results.
- About 95% said they were less dependent on reading glasses.
- Long distance vision was 20/20 or better in people in all age groups.
Tomita says the most common side effect was dry eye, which affected about 10% of patients and was treatable.
In general, the most common side effects include ocular surface changes, glare, halos, and night vision disturbances, according to AcuFocus' web site. Over time, these conditions are expected to lessen or go away.
Salz tells WebMD that he's generally impressed with the inlay. "It's very safe and reversible. If we put it in and you don't like it, we can take it out," he says.
Salz notes that some people with presbyopia opt for LASIK to deliberately under-correct one eye to let them see close objects, even though it's at the slight expense of distance vision.
"This inlay changes focus so you can read and it doesn't affect distance," he says.
But "this doesn’t mean you will never need glasses," Salz says. "It’s primarily for what I call social vision -- taking a quick look at a menu, at the GPS in the car, and so on," he says.
These findings were presented at a medical conference. They should be considered preliminary as they have not yet undergone the "peer review" process, in which outside experts scrutinize the data prior to publication in a medical journal.