H Hashemi1, M Miraftab1, S Asgari2. 1. Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran. 2. 1] Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran [2] Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes between PRK-MMC and phakic IOL in patients with more than 8 diopter (D) of myopia. METHODS: This comparative study was performed on 23 eyes under treatment with Artiflex (group A) and 23 eyes under treatment with PRK-MMC (group B). Artiflex phakic IOL (Ophtec BV) was used in group A, and the VISX STAR S4 Excimer Laser (Abbott) was used for PRK-MMC in group B. RESULTS: The safety index was 1.11 ± 0.23 and 1.05 ± 0.25 (P = 0.100) and the efficacy index was 1.02 ± 0.11 and 0.98 ± 0.10 (P = 0.266) in group A and B, respectively. At 1 year after surgery, the manifest refraction spherical equivalent was -0.17 ± 1.18 and -0.25 ± 0.18 D in group A and B, respectively (P = 0.471). Mesopic CS showed no significant difference between the two groups in any spatial frequency. Total coma was 0.24 ± 0.17 and 0.67 ± 0.40 μm (P < 0.001), spherical aberration was -0.11 ± 0.11 and 0.41 ± 0.18 μm (P < 0.001), and RMS HOAT was 0.50 ± 0.20 and 0.96 ± 0.45 μm (P<0.001) in group A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Phakic IOL implantation was better than PRK-MMC in the correction of high myopia in terms of visual quality, but the two methods had no difference with regard to visual acuity. Therefore, PRK-MMC can be used when the anterior chamber depth is a limiting factor in the implantation of phakic IOLs.
PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes between PRK-MMC and phakic IOL in patients with more than 8 diopter (D) of myopia. METHODS: This comparative study was performed on 23 eyes under treatment with Artiflex (group A) and 23 eyes under treatment with PRK-MMC (group B). Artiflex phakic IOL (Ophtec BV) was used in group A, and the VISX STAR S4 Excimer Laser (Abbott) was used for PRK-MMC in group B. RESULTS: The safety index was 1.11 ± 0.23 and 1.05 ± 0.25 (P = 0.100) and the efficacy index was 1.02 ± 0.11 and 0.98 ± 0.10 (P = 0.266) in group A and B, respectively. At 1 year after surgery, the manifest refraction spherical equivalent was -0.17 ± 1.18 and -0.25 ± 0.18 D in group A and B, respectively (P = 0.471). Mesopic CS showed no significant difference between the two groups in any spatial frequency. Total coma was 0.24 ± 0.17 and 0.67 ± 0.40 μm (P < 0.001), spherical aberration was -0.11 ± 0.11 and 0.41 ± 0.18 μm (P < 0.001), and RMS HOAT was 0.50 ± 0.20 and 0.96 ± 0.45 μm (P<0.001) in group A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Phakic IOL implantation was better than PRK-MMC in the correction of high myopia in terms of visual quality, but the two methods had no difference with regard to visual acuity. Therefore, PRK-MMC can be used when the anterior chamber depth is a limiting factor in the implantation of phakic IOLs.
Authors: H Burkhard Dick; Camille Budo; Francois Malecaze; Josep L Güell; Antonio A P Marinho; Rudy M M A Nuijts; Gregorius P M Luyten; Jose L Menezo; Thomas Kohnen Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Yusuf Yıldırım; Cengiz Alagöz; Abdülvahit Demir; Onur Ölçücü; Mehmet Özveren; Alper Ağca; Engin Bilge Özgürhan; Ahmet Demirok Journal: Turk J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-10-17