Cargando…

Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia

Presbyopia is the primary cause of reduction in the quality of life of people in their 40s, due to dependence on spectacles. Therefore, presbyopia correction has become an evolving and rapidly progressive field in refractive surgery. There are two primary options for presbyopia correction: the dynam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zare Mehrjerdi, Mohammad Ali, Mohebbi, Masomeh, Zandian, Mehdi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5644409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29090052
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_162_16
_version_ 1783271726710259712
author Zare Mehrjerdi, Mohammad Ali
Mohebbi, Masomeh
Zandian, Mehdi
author_facet Zare Mehrjerdi, Mohammad Ali
Mohebbi, Masomeh
Zandian, Mehdi
author_sort Zare Mehrjerdi, Mohammad Ali
collection PubMed
description Presbyopia is the primary cause of reduction in the quality of life of people in their 40s, due to dependence on spectacles. Therefore, presbyopia correction has become an evolving and rapidly progressive field in refractive surgery. There are two primary options for presbyopia correction: the dynamic approach uses the residual accommodative capacity of the eye, and the static approach attempts to enhance the depth of focus of the optical system. The dynamic approach attempts to reverse suspected pathophysiologic changes. Dynamic approaches such as accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs), scleral expansion techniques, refilling, and photodisruption of the crystalline lens have attracted less clinical interest due to inconsistent results and the complexity of the techniques. We have reviewed the most popular static techniques in presbyopia surgery, including multifocal IOLs, PresbyLASIK, and corneal inlays, but we should emphasize that these techniques are very different from the physiologic status of an untouched eye. A systematic PubMed search for the keywords “presbylasik”, “multifocal IOL”, and “presbyopic corneal inlay” revealed 634 articles; 124 were controlled clinical trials, 95 were published in the previous 10 years, and 78 were English with available full text. We reviewed the abstracts and rejected the unrelated articles; other references were included as needed. This narrative review compares different treatments according to available information on the optical basis of each treatment modality, including the clinical outcomes such as near, intermediate, and far visual acuity, spectacles independence, quality of vision, and dysphotopic phenomena.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5644409
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56444092017-10-31 Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia Zare Mehrjerdi, Mohammad Ali Mohebbi, Masomeh Zandian, Mehdi J Ophthalmic Vis Res Review Article Presbyopia is the primary cause of reduction in the quality of life of people in their 40s, due to dependence on spectacles. Therefore, presbyopia correction has become an evolving and rapidly progressive field in refractive surgery. There are two primary options for presbyopia correction: the dynamic approach uses the residual accommodative capacity of the eye, and the static approach attempts to enhance the depth of focus of the optical system. The dynamic approach attempts to reverse suspected pathophysiologic changes. Dynamic approaches such as accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs), scleral expansion techniques, refilling, and photodisruption of the crystalline lens have attracted less clinical interest due to inconsistent results and the complexity of the techniques. We have reviewed the most popular static techniques in presbyopia surgery, including multifocal IOLs, PresbyLASIK, and corneal inlays, but we should emphasize that these techniques are very different from the physiologic status of an untouched eye. A systematic PubMed search for the keywords “presbylasik”, “multifocal IOL”, and “presbyopic corneal inlay” revealed 634 articles; 124 were controlled clinical trials, 95 were published in the previous 10 years, and 78 were English with available full text. We reviewed the abstracts and rejected the unrelated articles; other references were included as needed. This narrative review compares different treatments according to available information on the optical basis of each treatment modality, including the clinical outcomes such as near, intermediate, and far visual acuity, spectacles independence, quality of vision, and dysphotopic phenomena. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5644409/ /pubmed/29090052 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_162_16 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Review Article
Zare Mehrjerdi, Mohammad Ali
Mohebbi, Masomeh
Zandian, Mehdi
Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia
title Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia
title_full Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia
title_fullStr Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia
title_full_unstemmed Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia
title_short Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia
title_sort review of static approaches to surgical correction of presbyopia
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5644409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29090052
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_162_16
work_keys_str_mv AT zaremehrjerdimohammadali reviewofstaticapproachestosurgicalcorrectionofpresbyopia
AT mohebbimasomeh reviewofstaticapproachestosurgicalcorrectionofpresbyopia
AT zandianmehdi reviewofstaticapproachestosurgicalcorrectionofpresbyopia