| Literature DB >> 22708970 |
Hui Huang1, Jianguo Yang, Huijing Bao, Shaorong Chen, Beibei Xia, Jun Zou.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the corneal high-order aberrations (HOAs), asphericity and regularity after Q-value guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) in high myopic astigmatism.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22708970 PMCID: PMC3407472 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2415-12-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Patient demographics
| 34.41 ± 5.29 | 32.72 ± 5.10 | 0.18 | |
| -7.32 ± 1.41 | -6.94 ± 1.50 | 0.27 | |
| -0.06 ± 0.03 | -0.06 ± 0.06 | 0.78 | |
| -0.35 ± 0.15 | -0.35 ± 0.15 | 0.70 | |
| 6.71 ± 0.24 | 6.63 ± 0.48 | 0.38 |
MRSE(manifest refraction spherical equivalent), CDVA (corrected distance visual acuity).
Visual acuity and refraction postoperatively
| -0.05 ± 0.06 | -0.05 ± 0.06 | -0.06 ± 0.06 | 0.39 | |
| +0.68 ± 0.37 | +0.62 ± 0.38 | +0.74 ± 0.36 | 0.16 | |
| 1.03 ± 0.13 | 1.03 ± 0.14 | 1.03 ± 0.11 | 0.83 | |
| 0.99 ± 0.15 | 0.98 ± 0.14 | 1.00 ± 0.15 | 0.59 |
Figure 1The mean refraction errors after aspheric LASIK and LASEK. Attempted spherical equivalent refraction versus achieved manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) in the Q-value guided LASIK group and LASEK group 3 years after surgery. LASIK: y = 1.07x + 0.15, R2 = 0.81; LASEK: y = 1.00x + 0.6, R2 = 0.91.
Figure 2The mean Q value for the two groups. The mean Q value increased from -0.35 ± 0.15 to 0.79 ± 0.33 in LASIK and from -0.35 ± 0.15 to 0.79 ± 0.30 in LASEK group.
Figure 3The mean AST at year 3 after surgery. The postoperative mean AST was 1.041 ± 0.38 in the LASIK group and 0.78 ± 0.45 in the LASEK group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.005). But there were no significant differences in changes of AST between the two groups.
Corneal regularity indices
| | | | | |
| 23.06 ± 4.76 | 54.25 ± 9.15 | 34.25 ± 18.15 | <0.001 | |
| 23.72 ± 6.31 | 53.08 ± 15.17 | 29.36 ± 16.05 | <0.001 | |
| 0.622 | 0.707 | 0.709 | | |
| | | | | |
| 0.15 ± 0.61 | 0.41 ± 0.14 | 0.29 ± 0.19 | <0.001 | |
| 0.15 ± 0.07 | 0.40 ± 0.16 | 0.26 ± 0.15 | <0.001 | |
| 0.945 | 0.800 | 0.938 | | |
| | | | | |
| 5.65 ± 4.32 | 23.51 ± 12.69 | 19.76 ± 16.33 | <0.001 | |
| 7.17 ± 5.39 | 27.47 ± 13.75 | 20.29 ± 13.79 | <0.001 | |
| 0.199 | 0.224 | 0.454 |
*P < 0.05, statistically significant.
Figure 4The mean spherical aberration between the two groups. Before surgery, the mean spherical aberration (Z40) was 0.23 ± 0.08 μm in the LASIK group and 0.22 ± 0.08 μm in the LASEK group (P = 0.129), without difference. Up to 3 years after surgery, the mean spherical aberration was 0.50 ± 0.19 μm in LASIK and 0.61 ± 0.19 μm in LASEK, differed significantly between the two groups (P = 0.029).
Spherical aberration correlation coefficient
| 0.241 | 0.048 | |
| 0.265 | 0.029 | |
| -0.672 | 0.000 | |
| -0.296 | 0.014 | |
| -0.272 | 0.025 | |
| 0.242 | 0.047 | |
| 0.317 | 0.008 |
Coma correlation coefficient
| 0.374 | 0.002 | |
| -0.315 | 0.009 | |
| -0.367 | 0.002 | |
| 0.363 | 0.002 | |
| 0.248 | 0.041 |
Spherical aberration regression coefficient
| 2.187 | 0.312 | | 7.008 | 0.000 | |
| -0.341 | 0.041 | -0.655 | -8.292 | 0.000 | |
| 0.241 | 0.069 | 0.279 | 3.500 | 0.001 | |
| 0.083 | 0.031 | 0.207 | 2.647 | 0.00 | |
| 0.032 | 0.013 | 0.192 | 2.408 | 0.019 |
R2 = 0.623.
Coma regression coefficient
| 0.740 | 0.624 | | 1.186 | 0.024 | |
| 0.269 | 0.080 | 0.350 | 3.374 | 0.001 | |
| -0.082 | 0.025 | -0.337 | -3.237 | 0.002 | |
| -0.165 | 0.080 | -0.218 | -2.073 | 0.042 |
R2 = 0.323.