INTACS for Keratoconus

Y. Rabinowitz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004397-200604630-00009
2006-08-01
International Ophthalmology Clinics
Abstract:INTACS are arclike, polymethylmethacrylate segments which are designed to be surgically inserted into the deep corneal stroma to flatten the central cornea. They were designed and approved by the FDA for the correction of mild myopia [ – 1 to – 3 Diopter(D)]. However, with the approval of the excimer laser around about the same time, the competition from laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASIK) which could more accurately and simply correct these refractive errors in the same range proved too much for Keravision, the company who originally manufactured this device, resulting in their demise and the discontinuation of its use for myopia. Dr Joseph Colin in France first conceived of the concept of using INTACS to treat patients with keratoconus, even though it was initially considered a contraindication for this disorder. In 2001, he published, 1-year follow-up data, on 10 patients he treated with moderate disease who were contact lens intolerant and demonstrated an improvement in both uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in almost all patients with very few complications. Recently, he presented 5-year data on this same group of patients and demonstrated refractive stability and no long-term complications (ESCRS winter meeting, Monte Carlo, 2006, unpublished data). Since his pioneering work, at least 5 other groups have been able to duplicate his work and have demonstrated that this device has a role in the armamentarium for the treatment of keratoconus. Recently, INTACS was approved for the treatment of keratoconus in the United States under a human device exemption which allows for its use under the surveillance of an institutional review board. In the United States, 0.25, 0.275, 0.30, 0.325, and 0.35 mm segments are available for the use. Outside the United States, 40 and 0.45 mm-sized segments are also available. A competitive device, the Ferrara ring is also sold and marketed outside the United States because it does not have FDA approval in the United States. The main difference between these 2 devices is that with INTACS
What problem does this paper attempt to address?