Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Article

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: sense organs, genetic structures, eye diseases
Presbyopia is an age-related eye condition where one of the signs is the reduction in the amplitude of accommodation, resulting in the loss of ability to change the eye's focus from far to near. It is the most common age-related ailments affecting everyone around their mid-40s. Methods for the correction of presbyopia include contact lens and spectacle options but the surgical correction of presbyopia still remains a significant challenge for refractive surgeons. Surgical strategies for dealing with presbyopia may be extraocular (corneal or scleral) or intraocular (removal and replacement of the crystalline lens or some type of treatment on the crystalline lens itself). There are however a number of limitations and considerations that have limited the widespread acceptance of surgical correction of presbyopia. Each surgical strategy presents its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages. For example, lens removal and replacement with an intraocular lens may not be preferable in a young patient with presbyopia without a refractive error. Similarly treatment on the crystalline lens may not be a suitable choice for a patient with early signs of cataract. This article is a review of the options available and those that are in development stages and are likely to be available in the near future for the surgical correction of presbyopia.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 12. Luger MHA, Ewering T, Arba-Mosqueras S. One-Year experience in presbyopia correction with biaspheric multifocal central presbyopia laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea 2013; 5:644-652.
    • 13. Baudu P, Penin F, Mosquera S. Uncorrected binocular performance after biaspheric ablation profile for presbyopic corneal treatment using AMARIS with the PresbyMAX module. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;4:636-647.
    • 14. Reinstein DZ, Carp GI, Archer TJ, Gobbe M. LASIK for presbyopia correction in emmetropic patients using aspheric ablation profiles and a micro-monovision protocol with Carl Zeiss Meditec MEL 80 and VisuMax. J Refract Surg 2012;28(8):531-41
    • 15. Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M. LASIK for myopic astigmatism and presbyopia using non-linear aspheric micro-monovision with Carl Zeiss Meditec MEL 80 platform. J Refract Surg 2011;27(1):23-37
    • 16. Reinstein DZ, Couch DG, Archer TJ. LASIK for hyperopic astigmatism and presbyopia using micro-monovision with Carl Zeiss Meditec MEL 80 platform. J Refract Surg 2009;25(1):37-58
    • 17. Uthoff D, Pölzl M, Hepper D, Holland D. A new method of corneal modulation with excimer laser for simultaneous correction of presbyopia and ammetropia. Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2012:250(11):1649-1661
    • 18. Johannsdottir KR, Stelmach LB. Monovision: a review of the scientific literature. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:646-651
    • 19. Asbell PA, Maloney RK, Davidorf J, Hersh P, McDonald M, Manche E. Conductive keratoplasty for the correction of hyperopia. Conductive Keratoplasty Study Group Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2001; 99:79-84;discussion 84-7.
    • 20. Ayoubi MG; Leccisotti A; Goodall EA et al. Femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis versus conductive keratoplasty to obtain monovision in patients with emmetropic presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;6:997-1002.
    • 21. Lin DY, Manche EE. Two-year results of conductive keratoplasty for the correction of low to moderate hyperopia J Cataract Refract Surg, 2003:29:2339-2350.
    • 22. McDonald M; Durrie D, Asbell P, Maloney R, Nichamin L. Treatment of presbyopia with conductive keratoplasty: six-month of the 1-year United Stares FDA clinical trial. Cornea 2004;(23)661-668.
    • 23. Moshirfar M; Anderson E; Hsu M; et al. Comparing the rate of regression after conductive keratoplasty with or without prior laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis or
    • 36. Limnopoulou AN, Bouzoukis DI, Kymionis GD, et al. Visual outcomes and safety of a refractive corneal inlay for presbyopia using femtosecond laser. J Refract Surg 2013; 29:12-18
    • 37. Bayly C, Kohnen T, O´Keefe M. Preloaded refractive-addition corneal inlay to compensate for presbyopia implanted using a femtosecond laser: one-year visual outcomes and safety. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40:1341-1348.
    • 38. Garza EB, Gomez S, Chayet A, Dishier J. One year safety and efficacy results of a hydrogel inlay to improve near vision in patients with emmetropic presbyopia. J Refract Surg 2013; 29(3):166-72.
    • 39. Keates RH, Pearce JL, Schneider RT. Clinical results of the multifocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1987;13:557-560.
    • 40. Knorz MC. Results of a European multicenter study of the True Vista bifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993;19:626-634.
    • 41. Slagsvold JE. 3M diffractive multifocal intraocular lens: eight-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:402-407.
    • 42. Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Haider SI, Karia N, Kasaby H, Aggarwal RK. Functional vision with bilateral ReZoom and ReSTOR intraocular lenses 6 months after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(12): 2057-2061
    • 43. Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Netto MV, et al. Visual performance of an apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with +3.00-d addition: 1-year follow-up. J Refract Surg 2011;27(12):899-906.
    • 44. Woodward MA, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(6):992-997
    • 45. Leccisotti A. Secondary procedures after presbyopic lens exchange. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30(7):1461-1465.
    • 46. Alió JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Piñero DP, Amparo F, Rodriguez-Prats JL, Ayala MJ: Quality of life evaluation after implantation of 2 multifocal intraocular lens models and monofocal model. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011,37:638-48.
    • 47. Davison JA, Simpson MJ. History and development of the apodized diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:849-858.
    • 48. Forte R. Ursoleo P. The ReZoom multifocal intraocular lens: 2-year follow-up. European J Ophthalmol 2009:19(3):380-383
    • 49. Mesci C, Erbil HH, Olgun A, Yaylali, SA. Visual performances with monofocal, accommodating, and multifocal intraocular lenses in patients with unilateral cataract. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;150(5):609-618.
    • 50. Cezón J, Bautista M-J. Visual outcomes after implantation of a refractive multifocal intraocular lens with a +3.00 D addition. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36:1508-1516.
    • 51. Cillino S, Casuccio A, Di Pace F, et al. One-year outcomes with new-generation multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2008;115(9):1508-16.
    • 52. de Vries NE, Webers CA, Touwslagers WR, et al. Dissatisfaction after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37(5):859-65
    • 53. Gooi P, Ahmed IK: Review of presbyopic IOLs: multifocal and accommodating IOLS. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2012;52:41-50.
    • 54. Davison JA: History and development of the apodized diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Sur 2006;32:849-858.
    • 55. Kohnen T, Allen D, Boureau C, Dublineau P, Hartman C, Mehdorn E, Rozot P, Tassinari G. European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 2006;113:578-584.
    • 56. Packer M, Chu YR, Waltz KL, Donnenfeld ED, Wallace III RB et al. Evaluation of the aspheric Tecnis multifocal intraocular lens: one-year results from the first cohort of the food and drug administration clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol 2010;149:577-584.
    • 57. Voskresenskaya A, Pozdeyeva N, Pashtaev N, Batkov Y, Treushnicov V, Cherednik V. Initial results of trifocal diffractive IOL implantation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010;248:1299-1306
    • 58. Mojzis P, Pena-Garcia P, Liehneova I et al. Outcomes of a new diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Sur 2014,40(1):60-69.
    • 59. Sheppard A, Shah S, Bhatt U et al. Visual outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of a new diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013, 39(3):343-49
    • 60. Mc Alinden C, Moore JE. Multifocal intraocular lens with a surface-embedded near section: short-term clinical outcomes. J Catarct Refract Surg. 2011;37:441-445.
    • 61. Alió JL, Piñero DP, Plaza-Puche AB, Rodriguez 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.
    • 62. McAlinden C, Moore JE. Multifocal intraocular lens with a surface-embedded near section: short-term clinical outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011;37: 441-445.
    • 63. Ramón ML, Piñero DP, Pérez-Cambrodí RJ. Correlation of visual performance with quality of life and intraocular aberrometric profile in patients implanted with rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOLs. J Refract Surg, 28 2012;28:93-99.
    • 64. Berrow EJ, Wolffsohn J, Bilkhu PS, Dhallu S, Naroo SA, Shah S. Visual performance of a new bi-aspheric, segmented, asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2014;30(9):584-588.
    • 65. Venter JA, Barclay D, Pelouskova M, Bull CEL. Initial Experience with a new refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. J Refracr Surg 2014;30(11):770-776
    • 66. Baikoff G, Matach G, Fontaine A, Ferraz C, Spera C. Correction of presbyopia with refractive multifocal phakic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30(7):1454- 60
    • 67. Baikoff G. Refractive phakic IOLs then and now. J Cataract Refract Surg Today 2004;72-4
    • 68. Alio JL, Mulet ME. Presbyopia correction with an anterior chamber phakic multifocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 2005; 112:1368-1374.
    • 69. Bacskulin A, Gast R, Bergmann U, Guthoff R. Ultrasound biomicroscopy imaging of accommodative configuration changes in the presbyopic ciliary body. Ophthalmologue 1996; 93:199-203
    • 70. Strenk SA, Semmlow JL, Strenk LM, Munoz P, Gronlund-Jacob J, DeMarco JK. Age related changes in human ciliary muscle and lens: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:1162-1169
    • 71. Langenbucher A, Huber S, Nguyen NX., Seitz, Gusek-Schneider GC, Kuchle M. Measurement of accommodation after implantation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29(4):677-685
    • 72. S. D. McLeod. Optical principles, biomechanics, and initial clinical performance of a dual-optic accommodating intraocular lens (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 2006;104:437-452, 20
    • 73. Cumming JS, Colvard DM, Dell SJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Crystalens AT-45 accommodating intraocular lens- Results of the US Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32(5):812-25
    • 74. Sanders DR, Sanders ML. Tetraflex Presbyopc IOL study Group. US FDA clinical trial 2 years 0.2 logMAR at 6 months 0.48 logMAR at 2 years
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article