Visual outcomes 24 months after LaserACE

AnnMarie Hipsley, David Hui-Kang Ma, Chi-Chin Sun, Mitchell A Jackson, Daniel Goldberg, Brad Hall, AnnMarie Hipsley, David Hui-Kang Ma, Chi-Chin Sun, Mitchell A Jackson, Daniel Goldberg, Brad Hall

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the effects on near and intermediate visual performance after bilateral Laser Anterior Ciliary Excision (LaserACE) procedure.

Methods: LaserACE surgery was performed using the VisioLite 2.94 μm erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) ophthalmic laser system in 4 oblique quadrants on the sclera over the ciliary muscle in 3 critical zones of physiological importance (over the ciliary muscles and posterior zonules) with the aim to improve natural dynamic accommodative forces. LaserACE was performed on 26 patients (52 eyes). Outcomes were analyzed using visual acuity testing, Randot stereopsis, and the CatQuest 9SF patient survey.

Results: Binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) improved from +0.20 ± 0.16 logMAR preoperatively, to +0.12 ± 0.14 logMAR at 24 months postoperatively (p = 0.0014). There was no statistically significant loss in distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA). Binocular DCNVA improved from +0.21 ± 0.17 logMAR preoperatively, to +0.11 ± 0.12 logMAR at 24 months postoperatively (p = 0.00026). Stereoacuity improved from 74.8 ± 30.3 s of arc preoperatively, to 58.8 ± 22.9 s of arc at 24 months postoperatively (p = 0.012). There were no complications such as persistent hypotony, cystoid macular edema, or loss of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Patients surveyed indicated reduced difficulty in areas of near vision, and were overall satisfied with the procedure.

Conclusions: Preliminary results of the LaserACE procedure show promising results for restoring visual performance for near and intermediate visual tasks without compromising distance vision and without touching the visual axis. The visual function and visual acuity improvements had clinical significance. Patient satisfaction was high postoperatively and sustained over 24 months.

Trial registration: NCT01491360 (https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01491360). Registered 22 November 2011.

Keywords: Accommodation; Asian eyes; Clinical trial; Presbyopia; Visual acuity.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
LaserACE surgical procedure. a the three critical zones of significance as measured from the anatomical limbus; b restored mechanical efficiency and improved biomechanical mobility (procedure objectives)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
LaserACE surgical technique. Photo a Quadrant marker; b Matrix marker; c Corneal Shield; d LaserACE micropore ablation; e Subconjunctival Collagen; f Completed 4 quadrants
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Uncorrected (lightly colored) and distance-corrected (darkly colored) visual acuity at distance (4 m) intermediate (60 cm), and near (40 cm) for a) monocular and b) binocular patient eyes. Error bars represent mean ± SD
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Box-and-whiskers plot of the stability of the spherical equivalent refraction of patient eyes. The upper and lower extremities of the box represent the 75 and 25th percentiles, the bar within the box represents the median, the whiskers represent the full extent of the data ranges, and the points represent outliers. The star denotes statistical significance compared to preoperative values
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Box-and-whiskers plot of the postoperative changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) of patient eyes. The upper and lower extremities of the box represent the 75 and 25th percentiles, the bar within the box represents the median, the whiskers represent the full extent of the data ranges, and the points represent outliers. The stars denote statistical significance compared to preoperative values
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Box-and-whiskers plot of the stereoacuity of patient eyes. The upper and lower extremities of the box represent the 75 and 25th percentiles, the bar within the box represents the median, the whiskers represent the full extent of the data ranges, and the points represent outliers. The star denotes statistical significance compared to preoperative values
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Average participant ratings from the CatQuest 9SF survey. Responses ranged from +2, indicating no difficulty, to −2, indicating great difficulty. Error bars represent mean ± SE
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Serial photographs of representative patients from postoperative 1 week to 2 years

References

    1. Marmer RH. The surgical reversal of presbyopia: a new procedure to restore accommodation. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2001;41:123–132. doi: 10.1097/00004397-200104000-00012.
    1. von Helmholtz H. Mechanism of accommodation. In: JPC S, editor. Helmholtz’s treatise on physiological optics, Vol. 1, trans. From the 3rd German Ed. Rochester: Optical Society of America; 1924. pp. 143–172.
    1. Ylmaz ÖF, Alagöz N, Pekel G, Azman E, Aksoy EF, Cakır H, et al. Intracorneal inlay to correct presbyopia: long-term results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:1275–1281. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.01.027.
    1. Gil-Cazorla R, Shah S, Naroo SA. A review of the surgical options for the correction of presbyopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:62–70. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-306663.
    1. Glasser A. Restoration of accommodation: surgical options for correction of presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom. 2008;91:279–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00260.x.
    1. Baikoff G. Surgical treatment of presbyopia: scleral, corneal, and lenticular. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15:365–369. doi: 10.1097/00055735-200408000-00014.
    1. Croft MA, McDonald JP, Katz A, Lin TL, Lütjen-Drecoll E, Kaufman PL. Extralenticular and lenticular aspects of accommodation and presbyopia in human versus monkey eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:5035–48. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10846.
    1. Croft MA, Nork TM, McDonald JP, Katz A, Lütjen-Drecoll E, Kaufman PL. Accommodative movements of the vitreous membrane, choroid, and sclera in young and presbyopic human and nonhuman primate eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:5049–5058. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10847.
    1. Strenk SA, Strenk LM, Guo S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the anteroposterior position and thickness of the aging, accommodating, phakic, and pseudophakic ciliary muscle. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:235–241. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.08.029.
    1. Richdale K, Sinnott LT, Bullimore MA, Wassenaar PA, Schmalbrock P, Kao CY, et al. Quantification of age-related and per diopter accommodative changes of the lens and ciliary muscle in the emmetropic human eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:1095–1105. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10619.
    1. Croft MA, Glasser A, Kaufman PL. Accommodation and presbyopia. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2001;41:33–46. doi: 10.1097/00004397-200104000-00005.
    1. Lütjen-Drecoll E, Kaufman PL, Wasielewski R, Ting-Li L, Croft MA. Morphology and accommodative function of the vitreous zonule in human and monkey eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:1554–64. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-4008.
    1. Detorakis ET, Pallikaris IG. Ocular rigidity: biomechanical role, in vivo measurements and clinical significance. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;41:73–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2012.02809.x.
    1. Flügel-Koch CM, Croft MA, Kaufman PL, Lütjen-Drecoll E. Anteriorly located zonular fibres as a tool for fine regulation in accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016;36:13–20. doi: 10.1111/opo.12257.
    1. Graebel WP, Van Alphen G. The elasticity of sclera and choroid of the human eye, and its implications on scleral rigidity and accommodation. J Biomech Eng. 1977;99:203–208. doi: 10.1115/1.3426291.
    1. Hipsley A, McDonald M. Laser scleral matrix microexcisions (LaserACE/erbium YAG laser). In: Pallikaris IG, Plainis S, Charman WN, editors. Presbyopia: origins, effects, and treatment. New Jersey: Slack Incorporated; 2012. p. 219–25.
    1. Hipsley A, Dementiev D. VisioDynamics theory: a biomechanical model for the aging ocular organ. In: Ashok G, Urzua G, Dementiev D, Pinelli R, editors. Step by step innovations in Presbyopia management. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2006. pp. 269–315.
    1. Goldberg DB. Computer-animated model of accommodation and presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:437–445. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.07.028.
    1. Croft MA, Heatley G, McDonald JP, Katz A, Kaufman PL. Accommodative movements of the lens/capsule and the strand that extends between the posterior vitreous zonule insertion zone & the lens equator, in relation to the vitreous face and aging. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016;36:21–32. doi: 10.1111/opo.12256.
    1. Vincent J. Structural biomaterials. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University press; 2012. p. 1–36.
    1. Wang YC, Lakes RS. Stable extremely-high-damping discrete viscoelastic systems due to negative stiffness elements. Appl Phys Lett. 2004;84:4451–4453. doi: 10.1063/1.1759064.
    1. Hipsley A. Compelling Findings for restoring natural dynamic accommodation using dynamic abberometry. In: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons. San Diego. 2011.
    1. Lundström M, Roos P, Jensen S, Fregell G. Catquest questionnaire for use in cataract surgery care: description, validity, and reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997;23:1226–1236. doi: 10.1016/S0886-3350(97)80321-5.
    1. Malecaze FJ, Gazagne CS, Tarroux MC, Gorrand JM. Scleral expansion bands for presbyopia. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:2165–71. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00591-7.
    1. Soloway B, Schanzlin DJ. Effect of refinements in surgical instrumentation and scleral implant device and technique on presbyopia treatment. In: The Annual ASCRS and ASOA Symposium and Congress. Boston. 2015.
    1. Morgan MW. Changes in refraction over a period of twenty years in a non-visually selected sample. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom. 1958;35:281–99. doi: 10.1097/00006324-195806000-00001.
    1. Ang RE. Refractive and visual outcomes at postoperative year 2 in a randomized clinical comparison of accommodating and 2 multifocal IOLs. In: The Annual ASCRS and ASOA Symposium and Congress. Boston. 2015.
    1. Dhital A, Spalton DJ, Gala KB. Comparison of near vision, intraocular lens movement, and depth of focus with accommodating and monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1872–1878. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.05.049.
    1. Arba Mosquera S, Alió JL. Presbyopic correction on the cornea. Eye Vis (Lond). 2014;1:5.
    1. Evans BJW. Monovision: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;27:417–439. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2007.00488.x.
    1. O’Keefe M, O’Keeffe N. Corneal surgical approach in the treatment of presbyopia. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;7:512.
    1. Macsai MS, Padnick-Silver L, Fontes BM. Visual outcomes after accommodating intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:628–633. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.01.027.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다