Literature DB >> 27070229

Quality of Vision After Wavefront-Guided or Wavefront-Optimized LASIK: A Prospective Randomized Contralateral Eye Study.

Jennifer S Kung, Edward E Manche.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK using different laser platforms on subjective quality of vision.
METHODS: The dominant eyes of 55 participants with myopia were randomized to receive either wavefront-guided LASIK treatment by the VISX Star S4 IR Custom-Vue excimer laser system (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Santa Clara, CA) or wavefront-optimized treatment by the WaveLight Allegretto Wave Eye-Q 400-Hz excimer laser system (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX), whereas the fellow eye had the alternate laser treatment. Patients completed a questionnaire assessing quality of vision and visual symptoms (daytime and nighttime glare, daytime and nighttime clarity, halos, haze, fluctuating vision, and double vision) preoperatively and at postoperative months 1, 3, 6, and 12.
RESULTS: At 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, there was no significant difference in any individual symptom between the wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized groups, although at 12 months wavefront-guided eyes trended toward having more excellent vision (wavefront-guided vs wavefront-optimized; 2.26 vs 2.43; P = .039). In the subgroup of patients with preoperative root mean square (RMS) higher order aberrations (HOAs) less than 0.3 µm in both eyes, the wavefront-optimized group demonstrated a trend toward worsened nighttime clarity (P = .009), daytime clarity (P = .015), and fluctuating vision (P = .046), and less excellent vision (P = .009) at 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months after surgery, most patients' self-reported visual symptoms were similar in eyes receiving wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized LASIK. In general, 36% of patients preferred wavefront-guided LASIK, 19% preferred wavefront-optimized LASIK, and 45% had no preference at 12 months. The wavefront-guided preference was more pronounced in patients with lower baseline HOAs (RMS < 0.3 µm). Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27070229     DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20151230-01

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Refract Surg        ISSN: 1081-597X            Impact factor:   3.573


  5 in total

1.  Aberrometry Repeatability and Agreement with Autorefraction.

Authors:  Mylan T Nguyen; David A Berntsen
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Centration of myopic refractive ablation: should we center treatment on the pupil or the visual axis?

Authors:  Gilad Rabina; Michael Mimouni; Jacqueline Slomovic; Nir Sorkin; Achia Nemet; Igor Kaiserman
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 3.161

3.  Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors.

Authors:  Shi-Ming Li; Meng-Tian Kang; Ning-Li Wang; Samuel A Abariga
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-12-18

4.  Correlation between higher-order aberrations and visual acuity recovery (CoHORT) after spectacles treatment for pediatric refractive amblyopia: A pilot study using iDesign measurement.

Authors:  Chun-Fu Liu; Chung-Hsin Tseng; Chung-Ying Huang; Chi-Chin Sun; Meng-Ling Yang; Wei-Yi Chen; Ling Yeung
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Refractive, visual, and subjective quality of vision outcomes for very high myopia LASIK from - 10.00 to - 13.50 diopters.

Authors:  Avi Wallerstein; Joseph Wai Keung Kam; Mathieu Gauvin; Eser Adiguzel; Mounir Bashour; Ananda Kalevar; Mark Cohen
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 2.209

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.