One-Year Outcomes from a Prospective, Randomized, Eye-to-Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized LASIK in Myopes

被引:44
|
作者
Sales, Christopher S. [1 ]
Manche, Edward E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Byers Eye Inst, Sch Med, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA
关键词
HIGHER-ORDER ABERRATIONS; IN-SITU KERATOMILEUSIS; FEMTOSECOND LASER; PHOTOREFRACTIVE KERATECTOMY; TRIAL; METAANALYSIS; ASTIGMATISM; ALLEGRETTO;
D O I
10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.05.010
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare wavefront (WF)-guided and WF-optimized LASIK in myopes. Design: Prospective, randomized, eye-to-eye study. Participants: A total of 72 eyes of 36 participants with myopia with or without astigmatism. Methods: Participants were randomized to receive WF-guided or WF-optimized LASIK with the WaveLight Allegretto Eye-Q 400-Hz excimer laser platform (Alcon, Inc., Huenberg, Switzerland). LASIK flaps were created using the 150-kHz IntraLase iFS (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA). Evaluations included measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), <5% and <25% contrast sensitivity, and WF aberrometry. Patients also completed a validated questionnaire detailing symptoms on a quantitative scale. Main Outcome Measures: Safety, efficacy, predictability, refractive error, UDVA, CDVA, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations (HOAs). Results: The frequency with which the WF-guided and WF-optimized groups achieved postoperative UDVA of >= 20/16 or >= 20/20 and the frequency with which the groups lost 1 or 2 or more lines or maintained their preoperative CDVA were not statistically different from each other (all P > 0.05). The frequency with which the WF-guided group attained a refractive error within +/- 0.25 diopters of emmetropia was higher than in the WF-optimized group (67.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 50.4-84.8 vs. 41.2%, 95% CI, 23.2-59.2; P = 0.03). The WF-guided group's mean UDVA was better than the WF-optimized group's UDVA by approximately 1 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study line (-0.17 +/- 0.11 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], slightly <20/12 Snellen vs. -0.13 +/- 0.12, slightly >20/16; P = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in contrast sensitivity, astigmatism, coma, or higher-order root mean square error between the groups (all P > 0.05), but the WF-guided group had less trefoil compared with the WF-optimized group (0.14 +/- 0.07 vs. 0.20 +/- 0.09; P < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in subjective parameters between the groups (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: Wavefront-guided and WF-optimized LASIK using the Alcon WaveLight Allegretto Eye-Q 400-Hz excimer laser platform provide similar results in myopic patients; however, the WF-guided approach may yield small gains in visual acuity, predictability, and HOAs. (C) 2013 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
引用
收藏
页码:2396 / 2402
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Comparison between Wavefront-optimized and corneal Wavefront-guided Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in moderate to high astigmatism
    Ikhyun Jun
    David Sung Yong Kang
    Samuel Arba-Mosquera
    Jin Young Choi
    Hyung Keun Lee
    Eung Kweon Kim
    Kyoung Yul Seo
    Tae-im Kim
    BMC Ophthalmology, 18
  • [42] Comparison between Wavefront-optimized and corneal Wavefront-guided Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in moderate to high astigmatism
    Jun, Ikhyun
    Kang, David Sung Yong
    Arba-Mosquera, Samuel
    Choi, Jin Young
    Lee, Hyung Keun
    Kim, Eung Kweon
    Seo, Kyoung Yul
    Kim, Tae-im
    BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 18
  • [43] A Comparison between Wavefront-Optimized and Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy in Patients with Moderate-to-High Astigmatism: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Razmjou, Hassan
    Peyman, Alireza
    Moshfeghi, Saeedreza
    Kateb, Hamideh
    Naderan, Morteza
    JOURNAL OF CURRENT OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2022, 34 (02): : 194 - 199
  • [44] Cyclorotation of the eye in wavefront-guided LASIK using a static eyetracker with iris recognition
    Kohnen, T.
    Kuehne, C.
    Cichocki, M.
    Strenger, A.
    OPHTHALMOLOGE, 2007, 104 (01): : 60 - 65
  • [45] Outcome comparison between wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Hamam, Khaled M.
    Gbreel, Mohamed I.
    Elsheikh, Randa
    Benmelouka, Amira Y.
    Ouerdane, Yassamine
    Hassan, Amr K.
    Hamdallah, Aboalmagd
    Elsnhory, Ahmed B.
    Nourelden, Anas Z.
    Masoud, Ahmed T.
    Ali, Asmaa A.
    Ragab, Khaled M.
    Ibrahim, Ahmed M.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2020, 68 (12) : 2691 - 2698
  • [46] Visual outcomes after wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis: Prospective comparison
    Moshirfar, Majid
    Schliesser, Joshua A.
    Chang, Joann C.
    Oberg, Thomas J.
    Mifflin, Mark D.
    Townley, Richard
    Livingston, Myrna K.
    Kurz, Christopher J.
    JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2010, 36 (08): : 1336 - 1343
  • [47] Comparison of wavefront-optimized and corneal wavefront-guided transPRK for high-order aberrations (&gt;0.35 μm) in myopia
    Shao, Ting
    Li, Hua
    Zhang, Jiafan
    Wang, Huifeng
    Liu, Sai
    Long, Keli
    JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2022, 48 (12): : 1413 - 1418
  • [48] Comparison of simulated keratometric changes following wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis
    Lee, Wen-Shin
    Manche, Edward E.
    CLINICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 12 : 613 - 619
  • [49] Comparing wavefront-optimized, wavefront-guided and topography-guided laser vision correction: clinical outcomes using an objective decision tree
    Stonecipher, Karl
    Parrish, Joseph
    Stonecipher, Megan
    CURRENT OPINION IN OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 29 (04) : 278 - 286
  • [50] Comparison of short-term refractive surgery outcomes after wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided LASIK
    Moussa, Sarah
    Dexl, Alois
    Krall, Eva Maria
    Dietrich, Marie
    Arlt, Eva-Maria
    Grabner, Guenther
    Ruckhofer, Josef
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2016, 26 (06) : 529 - 535