PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, predictability, and vector analysis indices of LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of high cylinder of greater than 3 diopters (D) in myopic eyes. METHODS: The efficacy, safety, and predictability of LASIK or PRK performed in 114 consecutive randomly selected myopic eyes with an astigmatism of greater than 3 D were retrospectively analyzed at the 2- to 6-month follow-up visits. Vector analysis of the cylindrical correction was compared between the treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 57 eyes receiving PRK and 57 eyes receiving LASIK of 114 refractive surgery candidates were enrolled in the study. No statistically significant difference in efficacy [efficacy index = 0.76 (±0.32) for PRK vs 0.74 (±0.19) for LASIK (P = .82)], safety [safety index = 1.10 (±0.26) for PRK vs 1.01 (±0.17) for LASIK (P = .121)], or predictability [achieved astigmatism < 1 D in 39% of PRK- and 54% of LASIK-treated eyes, and < 2 D in 88% of PRK- and 89% of LASIK-treated eyes (P = .218)] was demonstrated. Using Alpins vector analysis, the surgically induced astigmatism and difference vector were not significantly different between the surgery methods, whereas the correction index showed a slight and significant advantage of LASIK over PRK (1.25 for PRK and 1.06 for LASIK, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: LASIK and PRK are comparably safe, effective, and predictable procedures for excimer laser correction of high astigmatism of greater than 3 D in myopic eyes. Predictability of the correction of the cylindrical component is lower than that of the spherical equivalent. Copyright 2013, SLACK Incorporated.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, predictability, and vector analysis indices of LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of high cylinder of greater than 3 diopters (D) in myopic eyes. METHODS: The efficacy, safety, and predictability of LASIK or PRK performed in 114 consecutive randomly selected myopic eyes with an astigmatism of greater than 3 D were retrospectively analyzed at the 2- to 6-month follow-up visits. Vector analysis of the cylindrical correction was compared between the treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 57 eyes receiving PRK and 57 eyes receiving LASIK of 114 refractive surgery candidates were enrolled in the study. No statistically significant difference in efficacy [efficacy index = 0.76 (±0.32) for PRK vs 0.74 (±0.19) for LASIK (P = .82)], safety [safety index = 1.10 (±0.26) for PRK vs 1.01 (±0.17) for LASIK (P = .121)], or predictability [achieved astigmatism < 1 D in 39% of PRK- and 54% of LASIK-treated eyes, and < 2 D in 88% of PRK- and 89% of LASIK-treated eyes (P = .218)] was demonstrated. Using Alpins vector analysis, the surgically induced astigmatism and difference vector were not significantly different between the surgery methods, whereas the correction index showed a slight and significant advantage of LASIK over PRK (1.25 for PRK and 1.06 for LASIK, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: LASIK and PRK are comparably safe, effective, and predictable procedures for excimer laser correction of high astigmatism of greater than 3 D in myopic eyes. Predictability of the correction of the cylindrical component is lower than that of the spherical equivalent. Copyright 2013, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Andreas Frings; Gisbert Richard; Johannes Steinberg; Vasyl Druchkiv; Stephan Johannes Linke; Toam Katz Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2016-03-31
Authors: Juan Gros-Otero; Montserrat Garcia-Gonzalez; Miguel A Teus; MariLuz Iglesias-Iglesias; Carlos Gimenez-Vallejo Journal: J Optom Date: 2016-10-14