Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors

Recent Advances in Refractive Surgery: An Overview

Refractive surgery has experienced substantial advancements over the past few years, driven by innovative techniques and continuous technological progress aimed at enhancing visual outcomes and patient satisfaction. Refractive errors such as myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism affect a significant portion of the global population, impacting quality of life and productivity. Recent advancements have been fueled by a deeper understanding of ocular biomechanics and visual optics, leading to more precise and effective treatments. Traditional methods such as LASIK and PRK have been refined, and new procedures like SMILE (Small Incision Lenticule Extraction) have been introduced, expanding the range of treatable refractive errors and improving safety and predictability. Customized treatments, such as wavefront-guided LASIK and topography-guided PRK, allow for individualized plans tailored to each patient's unique corneal characteristics, enhancing visual acuity and reducing higher-order aberrations. The use of femtosecond lasers in procedures like Femto-LASIK and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) offers unparalleled precision, reducing surgical risks and improving outcomes. Implantable Collamer Lenses (ICLs) and corneal crosslinking (CXL) have emerged as effective options for specific patient groups. Advanced diagnostic tools like optical coherence tomography (OCT) and Scheimpflug imaging have improved surgical planning and complication management. As research and technology continue to evolve, these advancements promise even greater improvements in refractive surgery, addressing the visual needs of the global population.

Investigation of corneal epithelial thickness and irregularity by optical coherence tomography after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Corneal epithelial healing after refractive surgery is a clinically significant issue, especially for surface ablation procedures, and this can be monitored using optical coherence tomography (OCT).

BACKGROUND

The aim of this work is to investigate the corneal epithelial thickness and irregularity by OCT after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (t-PRK) and analyse its correlation with visual and refractive outcomes.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with myopia, with or without astigmatism, who underwent t-PRK between May 2020 and August 2021 were included. All participants were subjected to complete ophthalmic examinations and OCT pachymetry at every follow-up visit. Patients were followed up at 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 67 patients (126 eyes) were enrolled in this study. One month postoperatively, spherical equivalent refraction and visual acuity achieved preliminary stability. However, central corneal epithelial thickness (CCET) and standard deviation of the corneal epithelial thickness (SDcet) took 3-6 months to progressive recovery. Patients with higher baseline spherical equivalent refraction were associated with slower epithelial recovery. At every follow-up time point, a significant superior-inferior difference in the minimum corneal epithelial thickness area was observed. Higher stromal haze was correlated with higher spherical equivalent refraction (both baseline and residual) but had no relation with visual outcomes. There was a significant correlation between higher CCET with a better uncorrected distance visual acuity and lower corneal epithelial thickness irregularity.

CONCLUSIONS

CCET and SDcet measured by OCT seem to be a good auxiliary indicator for reflecting the status of corneal wound recovery after t-PRK surgery. However, a well-designed randomised control study is needed to confirm the study results.

Clinical Ocular Biomechanics: Where Are We after 20 Years of Progress?

Purpose: Ocular biomechanics is an assessment of the response of the structures of the eye to forces that may lead to disease development and progression, or influence the response to surgical intervention. The goals of this review are (1) to introduce basic biomechanical principles and terminology, (2) to provide perspective on the progress made in the clinical study and assessment of ocular biomechanics, and (3) to highlight critical studies conducted in keratoconus, laser refractive surgery, and glaucoma in order to aid interpretation of biomechanical parameters in the laboratory and in the clinic.Methods: A literature review was first conducted of basic biomechanical studies related to ocular tissue. The subsequent review of ocular biomechanical studies was limited to those focusing on keratoconus, laser refractive surgery, or glaucoma using the only two commercially available devices that allow rapid assessment of biomechanical response in the clinic.Results: Foundational studies on ocular biomechanics used a combination of computer modeling and destructive forces on ex-vivo tissues. The knowledge gained from these studies could not be directly translated to clinical research and practice until the introduction of non-contact tonometers that quantified the deformation response of the cornea to an air puff, which represents a non-destructive, clinically appropriate load. The corneal response includes a contribution from the sclera which may limit corneal deformation. Two commercial devices are available, the Ocular Response Analyzer which produces viscoelastic parameters with a customized load for each eye, and the Corvis ST which produces elastic parameters with a consistent load for every eye. Neither device produces the classic biomechanical properties reported in basic studies, but rather biomechanical deformation response parameters which require careful interpretation.Conclusions: Research using clinical tools has enriched our understanding of how ocular disease alters ocular biomechanics, as well as how ocular biomechanics may influence the pathophysiology of ocular disease and response to surgical intervention.

Efficacy of Diclofenac in Pain Reduction after Topography-Guided Transepithelial Surface Ablation

PURPOSE

To report the efficacy of postoperative diclofenac eye drops for pain reduction in patients undergoing topography-guided transepithelial surface ablation.

METHODS

Retrospective consecutive case series of patients undergoing topography-guided transepithelial surface ablation for refractive myopia treatment using a 1 KHz excimer laser. Patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 did not receive any diclofenac drops, group 2 received one diclofenac drop postoperatively (day 1), and group 3 received one drop of diclofenac postoperatively (day 1) and on the day after treatment (day 2). Postoperative pain was self-assessed by patients per eye daily for the first 4 consecutive days (days 1 to 4) after the treatment using the visual analogue scale (VAS). We compared VAS with respect to the use of additional oral or topical treatment as well as VAS with regards to the total amount of ablated tissue (< 50 µm, 50 - 100 µm, ≥ 100 µm) among the groups.

RESULTS

We enrolled 163 eyes of 163 patients (55.0% female), with a mean age of 31.3 years (SD ± 6.6; range 21 - 68). We excluded 16 patients who applied other additional analgesics. Group 1 comprised 35 eyes (21%), group 2 had 21 eyes (13%), and group 3 consisted of 107 eyes (66%). Median pain score (VAS) was 5 (range 0, 10) in group 1, which was higher than in groups 2 (median 1, range 0 to 7) and 3 (median 1.5, range 0 to 7) on the day of surgery (p < 0.0001). Percentage of patients using an additional oral NSAID on days 1 and 2 was significantly higher in group 1 (69/83%) when compared to groups 2 (24/43%) or 3 (31/49%) (p < 0.001 day 1, p = 0.001 day 2). No correlation was found between pain sensation and maximum ablation depth (Spearman correlation p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The instillation of one drop of diclofenac after topography-guided transepithelial surface ablation reduced subjective pain sensation according to VAS and decreased the need for additional topical anesthetic drops or oral NSAID.

Intra-Operative Discomfort in Photorefractive Keratectomy

Purpose

Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) remains a viable, safe, and efficacious option for patients wishing to correct refractive errors. One of its most significant drawbacks is pain. While post-operative pain has been well studied with different management options, intra-operative pain has been less well defined. The purpose of this study was to characterize intra-operative pain during PRK in regard to eye operated on, gender, excimer platform used, surgeon, and age.

Patients and Methods

A total of 134 patients (264 eyes) were prospectively randomized to undergo bilateral PRK of either the right eye first or the left eye first followed immediately by the fellow eye. In the immediate post-operative period they were surveyed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale regarding intra-operative pain or discomfort experienced in each eye. Resultant pain scores were then analyzed via two sample z-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to characterize pain overall as well as comparing first versus second eye operated on, right versus left eye, male versus female, excimer platform used, inter-surgeon variability, and age.

Results

Of 264 eyes surveyed the mean pain experienced on a 0–10 pain scale was 1.13 (minimal discomfort). There was no statistically significant difference in pain or discomfort when comparing first versus second eye operated on, right versus left eye, male versus female, excimer platform used, operating surgeon, or age.

Conclusion

Intra-operative pain or discomfort experienced by patients is minimal. The absence of statistically significant differences in pain scores studied implies that standard of care procedures achieve adequate analgesia in PRK.

Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors

BACKGROUND

Refractive errors (conditions in which the eye fails to focus objects accurately on the retina due to defects in the refractive system), are the most common cause of visual impairment. Myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism are low-order aberrations, usually corrected with spectacles, contact lenses, or conventional refractive surgery. Higher-order aberrations (HOAs) can be quantified with wavefront aberration instruments and corrected using wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized laser surgery. Wavefront-guided ablations are based on preoperative measurements of HOAs; wavefront-optimized ablations are designed to minimize induction of new HOAs while preserving naturally occurring aberrations. Two wavefront procedures are expected to produce better visual acuity than conventional procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare effectiveness and safety of wavefront procedures, laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) versus corresponding conventional procedures, for correcting refractive errors in adults for postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive errors, and residual HOAs. The secondary objective was to compare two wavefront procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2019, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 6 August 2019. We imposed no restrictions by language or year of publication. We used the Science Citation Index (September 2013) and searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either wavefront modified with conventional refractive surgery or wavefront-optimized with wavefront-guided refractive surgery in participants aged ⪰ 18 years with refractive errors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 RCTs conducted in Asia, Europe and United States, totaling 1499 participants (2797 eyes). Participants had refractive errors ranging from high myopia to low hyperopia. Studies reported at least one of the following review-specific outcomes based on proportions of eyes: with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, without loss of one or more lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction, with HOAs and adverse events. Study characteristics and risk of bias Participants were mostly women, mean age 29 and 53 years, and without previous refractive surgery, ocular pathology or systemic comorbidity. We could not judge risks of bias for most domains of most studies. Most studies in which both eyes of a participant were analyzed failed to account for correlations between two eyes in the analysis and reporting of outcomes. Findings For the primary comparison between wavefront (PRK or LASIK or LASEK) and corresponding conventional procedures, 12-month outcome data were available from only one study of PRK with 70 participants. No evidence of more favorable outcomes of wavefront PRK on proportion of eyes: with UCVA of 20/20 or better (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.24); without loss of one or more lines of BSCVA (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09); within ± 0.5 D of target refraction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24); and mean spherical equivalent (mean difference [MD] 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.18). The evidence for each effect estimate was of low certainty. No study reported HOAs at 12 months. At six months, the findings of two to eight studies showed that overall effect estimates and estimates by subgroup of PRK or LASIK or LASEK were consistent with those for PRK at 12 month, and suggest no difference in all outcomes. The certainty of evidence for each outcome was low. For the comparison between wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided procedures at 12 months, the overall effect estimates for proportion of eyes: with UCVA of 20/20 or better (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02; 5 studies, 618 participants); without loss of one or more lines of BSCVA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 622 participants); within ± 0.5 diopters of target refraction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; I2 = 33%; 4 studies, 480 participants) and mean HOAs (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; I2 = 41%; 5 studies, 622 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between the two groups. Owing to substantial heterogeneity, we did not calculate an overall effect estimate for mean spherical equivalent at 12 months, but point estimates consistently suggested no difference between wavefront-optimized PRK versus wavefront-guided PRK. However, wavefront-optimized LASIK compared with wavefront-guided LASIK may improve mean spherical equivalent (MD -0.14 D, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.09; 4 studies, 472 participants). All effect estimates were of low certainty of evidence. At six months, the results were consistent with those at 12 months based on two to six studies. The findings suggest no difference between two wavefront procedures for any of the outcomes assessed, except for the subgroup of wavefront-optimized LASIK which showed probable improvement in mean spherical equivalent (MD -0.12 D, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.05; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 280 participants; low certainty of evidence) relative to wavefront-guided LASIK. We found a single study comparing wavefront-guided LASIK versus wavefront-guided PRK at six and 12 months. At both time points, effect estimates consistently supported no difference between two procedures. The certain of evidence was very low for all estimates. Adverse events Significant visual loss or optical side effects that were reported were similar between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that at 12 months and six months postoperatively, there was no important difference between wavefront versus conventional refractive surgery or between wavefront-optimized versus wavefront-guided surgery in the clinical outcomes analyzed. The low certainty of the cumulative evidence reported to date suggests that further randomized comparisons of these surgical approaches would provide more precise estimates of effects but are unlikely to modify our conclusions. Future trials may elect to focus on participant-reported outcomes such as satisfaction with vision before and after surgery and effects of remaining visual aberrations, in addition to contrast sensitivity and clinical outcomes analyzed in this review.