PURPOSE: To analyze ocular wavefront error and corneal asphericity (Q) in patients treated withaspheric profile photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) compared with patients having conventional PRK to correct myopia and myopic astigmatism and to evaluate the effect of postoperative corneal shape on visual performance. SETTING: Eye Clinic, University G. d'Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, Italy. METHODS:Fifty eyes were treated withaspheric profile PRK using the MEL 80 flying-spot excimer laser, and 24 eyes were treated with standard PRK using the MEL 70 flying-spot excimer laser. RESULTS:Postoperative wavefront error increased in both groups. Six months after surgery, there was a smaller increase in rootmean square (RMS) of total higher-order aberrations and spherical aberration (59% and 106%, respectively) in the aspheric profile PRK group than in the conventional PRK group (94% and 136%, respectively) (P<.01). The aspheric profile PRK group showed more prolate corneal asphericities (mean Q of 0.15 +/- 0.26) than the conventional group (mean Q of 0.45 +/- 0.26) (P<.001), with increasing oblateness for higher attempted corrections. A higher percentage of patients with better low-contrast uncorrected visual acuity and best corrected visual acuity was observed in the aspheric PRK group than in the conventional PRK group (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS:Aspheric profile and conventional PRK were safe and efficient for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Moreover, aspheric profile PRK induced a smaller increment of total wavefront error, was related to a smaller increase in spherical aberration, and better maintained the physiology of the corneal surface than conventional treatment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To analyze ocular wavefront error and corneal asphericity (Q) in patients treated with aspheric profile photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) compared with patients having conventional PRK to correct myopia and myopic astigmatism and to evaluate the effect of postoperative corneal shape on visual performance. SETTING: Eye Clinic, University G. d'Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, Italy. METHODS: Fifty eyes were treated with aspheric profile PRK using the MEL 80 flying-spot excimer laser, and 24 eyes were treated with standard PRK using the MEL 70 flying-spot excimer laser. RESULTS: Postoperative wavefront error increased in both groups. Six months after surgery, there was a smaller increase in root mean square (RMS) of total higher-order aberrations and spherical aberration (59% and 106%, respectively) in the aspheric profile PRK group than in the conventional PRK group (94% and 136%, respectively) (P<.01). The aspheric profile PRK group showed more prolate corneal asphericities (mean Q of 0.15 +/- 0.26) than the conventional group (mean Q of 0.45 +/- 0.26) (P<.001), with increasing oblateness for higher attempted corrections. A higher percentage of patients with better low-contrast uncorrected visual acuity and best corrected visual acuity was observed in the aspheric PRK group than in the conventional PRK group (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Aspheric profile and conventional PRK were safe and efficient for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Moreover, aspheric profile PRK induced a smaller increment of total wavefront error, was related to a smaller increase in spherical aberration, and better maintained the physiology of the corneal surface than conventional treatment.