Clinical outcomes of optimized prolate ablation and custom aspheric treatment in laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy

Clinical Outcomes of an Optimized Prolate Ablation Procedure for Correcting Residual Refractive Errors Following Laser Surgery

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of an optimized prolate ablation procedure for correcting residual refractive errors following laser surgery.

Methods

We analyzed 24 eyes of 15 patients who underwent an optimized prolate ablation procedure for the correction of residual refractive errors following laser in situ keratomileusis, laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy, or photorefractive keratectomy surgeries. Preoperative ophthalmic examinations were performed, and uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction values (sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent), point spread function, modulation transfer function, corneal asphericity (Q value), ocular aberrations, and corneal haze measurements were obtained postoperatively at 1, 3, and 6 months.

Results

Uncorrected distance visual acuity improved and refractive errors decreased significantly at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Total coma aberration increased at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, while changes in all other aberrations were not statistically significant. Similarly, no significant changes in point spread function were detected, but modulation transfer function increased significantly at the postoperative time points measured.

Conclusions

The optimized prolate ablation procedure was effective in terms of improving visual acuity and objective visual performance for the correction of persistent refractive errors following laser surgery.

Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia

BACKGROUND

Myopia (near-sightedness or short-sightedness) is a condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than required. The most frequent complaint of people with myopia is blurred distance vision, which can be eliminated by conventional optical aids such as spectacles or contact lenses, or by refractive surgery procedures such as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK). PRK uses laser to remove the corneal stroma. Similar to PRK, LASEK first creates an epithelial flap and then replaces it after ablating the corneal stroma. The relative benefits and harms of LASEK and PRK, as shown in different trials, warrant a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia by evaluating their efficacy and safety in terms of postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive error, and associated complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 December 2015. We used the Science Citation Index and searched the reference lists of the included trials to identify relevant trials for this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included in this review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia. Trial participants were 18 years of age or older and had no co-existing ocular or systemic diseases that might affect refractive status or wound healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all reports and assessed the risk of bias of trials included in this review. We extracted data and summarized findings using risk ratios and mean differences. We used a random-effects model when we identified at least three trials, and we used a fixed-effect model when we found fewer than three trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs with a total of 428 participants 18 years of age or older with low to moderate myopia. These trials were conducted in the Czech Republic, Brazil, Italy, Iran, China, Korea, Mexico, Turkey, USA, and UK. Investigators of 10 out of 11 trials randomly assigned one eye of each participant to be treated with LASEK and the other with PRK, but did not perform paired-eye (matched) analysis. Because of differences in outcome measures and follow-up times among the included trials, few trials contributed data for many of the outcomes we analyzed for this review. Overall, we judged RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting; however, because of imprecision, inconsistency, and potential reporting bias, we graded the quality of the evidence from very low to moderate for outcomes assessed in this review.The proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better at 12-month follow-up was comparable in LASEK and PRK groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.92 to 1.05). Although the 95% CI suggests little to no difference in effect between groups, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low because only one trial reported this outcome (102 eyes). At 12 months post treatment, data from two trials suggest no difference or a possibly small effect in favor of PRK over LASEK for the proportion of eyes achieving ± 0.50 D of target refraction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 00.84 to 1.03; 152 eyes; low-quality evidence). At 12 months post treatment, one trial reported that one of 51 eyes in the LASEK group lost one line or more best-spectacle corrected visual acuity compared with none of 51 eyes in the PRK group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.96; very low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse outcomes at 12 months of follow-up or longer. At 12 months post treatment, three trials reported corneal haze score; however, data were insufficient and were inconsistent among the trials, precluding meta-analysis. One trial reported little or no difference in corneal haze scores between groups; another trial reported that corneal haze scores were lower in the LASEK group than in the PRK group; and one trial did not report analyzable data to estimate a treatment effect. At 24 months post treatment, one trial reported a lower, but clinically unimportant, difference in corneal haze score for LASEK compared with PRK (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.14; 184 eyes; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty surrounds differences in efficacy, accuracy, safety, and adverse effects between LASEK and PRK for eyes with low to moderate myopia. Future trials comparing LASEK versus PRK should follow reporting standards and follow correct analysis. Trial investigators should expand enrollment criteria to include participants with high myopia and should evaluate visual acuity, refraction, epithelial healing time, pain scores, and adverse events.

Clinical outcomes between optical path difference custom aspheric treatment and optimized prolate ablation photorefractive keratectomy in myopia exceeding 8 diopters

PURPOSE

Comparison of visual acuity, refractive, and wavefront outcomes associated with optimized prolate ablation (OPA) and optical path difference custom aspheric treatment (OPDCAT) algorithms for correction of myopia exceeding 8 diopters (D).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to have photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with OPA (n=32) or OPDCAT (n=21) algorithms. Visual acuity, manifest refraction, ocular and corneal higher-order aberrations, corneal asphericity, modulated-transfer function, and point-spread function were compared 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Mean manifest-refraction spherical equivalents at 6 months were -0.24 D in both groups. All patients in both groups had an uncorrected-distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. Predictability (±1 D from intended refraction) at 6 months was 94% in the OPA group, and in the OPDCAT group it was 86%. The OPA group had less induced corneal and ocular spherical aberrations (SAs) than the OPDCAT group. Postoperative corneal asphericity change was lowest in the OPA group. Both the groups exhibited significantly-improved AreaRatio-Total value and insignificantly deteriorated AreaRatio-HO value throughout the postoperative period. The OPA group had significantly-higher AreaRatio-Total compared with OPDCAT group at both 1 and 6 months after the operation. Six months after surgery, the Strehl ratio had decreased in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The OPA algorithms yielded higher-objective visual quality and predictability, induced less corneal and ocular SAs, and preserved more preoperative-corneal asphericity than the OPDCAT algorithms.