Surgical treatment of presbyopia with central presbyopic keratomileusis: One-year results

Abstract

None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Corneal compensation of presbyopia: PresbyLASIK: an updated review

“…Most of the PresbyLASIK treatments have been performed in hyperopic patients [4, 7, 8, 10–12, 14]. These patients are more satisfied with their outcomes than myopes [24], since the latter have always been used to having good near vision.…”

“…Different techniques of presbyLASIK are available (central, peripheral, blended vision) however, there is much more scientific evidence with the use of central presbyLASIK technique [7, 8, 10–12, 14, 16–19, 29] than with the use of peripheral presbyLASIK [21–24]. Peripheral presbyLASIK removes an important amount of corneal tissue especially in the myopes, making this a limitation of the technique [6].…”

“…One of the main limitations of PresbyLASIK is the lack of strong scientific evidence, and there are no reports of long term follow-ups, most of the papers have only a 6 to 12 months follow-up [7, 8, 10, 11, 21–23, 29]. Spectacle independence varies from 72% [8] to 93% [12].…”

“…It is the most performed presbyLASIK technique [7], the first published results were reported by Alió et al who reported a 6 months follow up in 25 hyperopes; 64% of the patients had an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20, 72% of patients had a UNVA > 20/40, and 28% of the patients had a loss of 2 lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). Coma aberrations increased and spherical aberrations decreased [8].…”

“…Yin et al [7] used central presbyLASIK in the dominant eye and Q factor modulation (increase in negative Q factor for the improvement of depth of focus) in the non-dominant eye; the study included only hyperopes. The mean UNVA achieved was Jaeger 2, a mean UIVA and UDVA of 20/20.…”