Literature DB >> 10811085

Photorefractive keratectomy versus laser in situ keratomileusis: comparison of optical side effects. Summit PRK-LASIK Study Group.

P S Hersh1, R F Steinert, S F Brint.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This report presents patient-reported optical symptoms after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
DESIGN: Preoperative and postoperative patient surveys in a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty eyes of 220 patients entered the study; 105 were randomized to PRK and 115 were randomized to LASIK. INTERVENTION: All patients received a one-pass, multizone excimer laser ablation as part of either a PRK or LASIK procedure. Attempted corrections ranged from 6.00 to 15.00 diopters (D). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Glare, halo, and monocular diplopia symptoms as reported by patients on questionnaires before surgery and at the 6-month follow-up. Comparison was made between symptoms when using optical correction before surgery and symptoms without correction after surgery.
RESULTS: For both the PRK and LASIK groups analyzed individually, the difference in average glare index before surgery and after surgery was not statistically significant (P = 0.54 for PRK; P = 0.15 for LASIK; t test). Twenty-four PRK patients (41.4%) reported worsening of glare symptoms from baseline compared with 11 LASIK patients (21.6%); however, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.086, chi-square test). Within the PRK group, the difference in average halo index before and after surgery was statistically significant (P = 0.0003, t test); in the LASIK group, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.1 1, t test). Thirty-four PRK patients (58.6%) reported worsening of halo symptoms from baseline compared with 26 LASIK patients (50.0%); this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.086, chi-square test). For both the PRK and LASIK groups, the difference in average diplopia index before and after surgery was statistically significant (P < 0.0001 for PRK; 0.047 for LASIK; t test). Twenty-six PRK patients (44.8%) reported a worsening of monocular diplopia symptoms from baseline compared with 19 LASIK patients (35.8%); this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.39, chi-square test). When changes in glare and halo from before surgery to after surgery were pooled as a glare-halo index, however, the PRK group did show a significantly greater likelihood of demonstrating an increase in symptoms compared with the LASIK group (P = 0.048, chi-square test).
CONCLUSIONS: Optical sequelae of glare, halo, and monocular diplopia may occur in some patients after either both PRK or LASIK for moderate to high myopia; in contradistinction, many other patients' preoperative symptoms improve after surgery. On average, PRK patients show an increase in halo and diplopia symptoms, but not glare, after surgery, and LASIK patients show an increase in diplopia, but not glare and halo symptoms. There is a suggestion of a somewhat lesser tendency toward postoperative optical symptoms in LASIK compared with PRK treated eyes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10811085     DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00059-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  12 in total

1.  Comparison of higher-order aberration and optical quality after Epi-LASIK and LASIK for myopia.

Authors:  Xiaoyan Yang; Yan Wang; Kanxing Zhao; Lihua Fang
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-05-07       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 2.  [Optical quality after refractive corneal surgery].

Authors:  T Kohnen; J Bühren; M Cichocki; T Kasper; E Terzi; C Ohrloff
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  Optics of conductive keratoplasty: implications for presbyopia management.

Authors:  Peter S Hersh
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2005

4.  Wave front aberrations induced from biomechanical effects after customized myopic laser refractive surgery in finite element model.

Authors:  Ruirui Du; Lihua Fang; Weijian Peng; Ruizhi Yang; Shifeng Nie; Huirong Xiao; Jiahui Gong; Yu Dai; Jiahao Deng
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 2.031

5.  Comparative study of objective visual quality between FS-LASIK and SMART in myopia.

Authors:  Yuan Wu; Yue Huang; Shu-Han Wang; Gui-Qin Wang; Ao-Miao Yu; Shao-Zhen Zhao; Rui-Hua Wei; Rui-Bo Yang; Chen Zhang
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 1.779

6.  Monocular diplopia due to spherocylindrical refractive errors (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).

Authors:  Steven M Archer
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2007

7.  Using InterWave aberrometry to measure and improve the quality of vision in LASIK surgery.

Authors:  Keith P Thompson; P Randall Staver; Jose R Garcia; Stephen A Burns; Robert H Webb; R Doyle Stulting
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  The association between femtosecond laser flap parameters and ocular aberrations after uncomplicated custom myopic LASIK.

Authors:  Christopher T Hood; Ronald R Krueger; Steven E Wilson
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Effect of wavefront optimized LASIK on higher order aberrations in myopic patients.

Authors:  Muhammad Saim Khan; Sadia Humayun; Aisha Fawad; Mazhar Ishaq; Sabahat Arzoo; Fawad Mashhadi
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.088

10.  Visual performance after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy for high myopia.

Authors:  Yu-Ling Liu; Chien-Chi Tseng; Chang-Ping Lin
Journal:  Taiwan J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.