Binocular distance visual acuity does not decrease with the Kamra intra-corneal inlay

Abstract

In the article by García-Lázaro et al., the data we published on the binocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity following Kamra intracorneal inlay implantation were not cited correctly.1,2 García-Lázaro et al. used several contact lens–based pinhole systems in presbyopic patients and measured changes in distance and near visual acuity with and without the contact lenses. The authors proposed that pinhole-based contact lens systems are good models for small-aperture corneal inlays and that such models could be used to assess the performance of small-aperture corneal inlays. We do not agree with this theory and want to clarify our published data. García-Lázaro et al. stated that binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and binocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) are worse with contact lens–based pinhole systems than in a control group (distance-corrected patients without pinhole lens). In the discussion, they also state that the reduced visual acuities agree with data from our published studies with the Kamra intracorneal inlay.2,3 However, our results with the Kamra inlay showed no statistically significant difference in binocular UDVA preoperatively and postoperatively, with the mean UDVA being 20/20 in the implanted eye and 20/16 binocularly after 24 months (P=.774). The binocular CDVA was stable in all 32 patients (not “39” as cited on page 862 in García-Lázaro et al.’s article) during the entire follow-up of 24 months (mean 20/12.5). Readers should be aware of this incorrect citation and understand that the results of the article published by García-Lázaro et al. are not supported by our studies with the Kamra inlay.1,2