Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Oct-Dec;12(4):413-418.
doi: 10.4103/jovr.jovr_162_16.

Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia

Affiliations
Review

Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia

Mohammad Ali Zare Mehrjerdi et al. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2017 Oct-Dec.

Erratum in

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Corneal Inlays; Multifocal Intraocular Lenses (IOLs); PresbyLASIK.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Pallikaris IG, Sotiris P, Charman WN. “Presbyopia: Origins, Effects, and Treatment”. (Ch 1-4) Slack Incorporated, thorofare. 2012
    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. - PubMed
    1. Charman WN. Developments in the correction of presbyopia II: Surgical approaches. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34:397–426. - PubMed
    1. Jain S, Ou R, Azar DT. Monovision outcomes in presbyopic individuals after refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:430–433. - PubMed
    1. Levinger E, Trivizki O, Pokroy R, Levartovsky S, Sholohov G, Levinger S. Monovision surgery in myopic presbyopes: Visual function and satisfaction. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:1092–1097. - PubMed