Vector Analysis of 1-Year Astigmatic Outcomes From a Randomized Fellow Eye Comparison of Photorefractive Keratectomy Using 2 Excimer Laser Platforms

12-Month Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Topography-guided Femtosecond Laser-Assisted LASIK for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To report 12-month visual and refractive outcomes following topography-guided femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia and compound myopic astigmatism correction.

METHODS

This prospective, single-center observational study was conducted in an outpatient clinical practice at the Stanford University Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, 5% and 25% contrast sensitivity CDVA, and manifest refraction following topography-guided femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK were assessed. Refractive measurements were used to perform a vector analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty eyes of 30 patients (mean age: 32.8 ± 7.0 years; range: 23 to 52 years) undergoing topography-guided LASIK for the correction of myopia and compound myopic astigmatism were analyzed. Mean postoperative UDVA was -0.09 ± 0.10 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) at 12 months. Mean preoperative CDVA was -0.09 ± 0.09 and -0.13 ± 0.08 logMAR at postoperative 12 months. At 12 months, 26.9% of eyes had gained one or more lines of postoperative UDVA compared to baseline CDVA. Mean pre-operative 5% contrast sensitivity CDVA was 0.68 ± 0.07 and 0.64 ± 0.12 logMAR at 12 months (P = .014) following LASIK.

CONCLUSIONS

Topography-guided LASIK for myopia and myopic astigmatism correction provided excellent visual and refractive outcomes that were predictable, precise, and stable up to 12 months postoperatively. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(9):e595-e603.].

A comparison between wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy in patients with moderate-to-high astigmatism: A randomized clinical trial

Purpose:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

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.

Outcome comparison between wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) eye surgery is widely used for patients at risk for corneal ectasia to maintain an aspheric corneal shape. Wavefront-guided (WFG) ablation profile was designed to reduce pre-existing higher-order aberrations (HOA). We aimed to compare the corneal aberrations and visual outcomes between WFG and Wavefront Optimized (WFO) PRK in patients with myopia. Eight randomized clinical trials were included. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL at March 2020, and updated the search in September 2020 using relevant keywords, The data were extracted and pooled as Mean Difference (MD) with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI), using Review Manager software (version 5.4). Pooled results showed no significance between Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) and Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) between both groups underwent WFG and WFO PPR after three months follow up (MD = - 0.03; 95% CI: [-0.06, 0.00]; P = 0.07), (MD = - 0.02; 95% CI: [-0.04, 0.01]; P = 0.22) respectively. Although, no significant difference between mean manifest cylinder after three and 12 months follow up, but the total MD for mean manifest cylinder difference was significantly lower with the WFG treatment method (MD = - 0.12, (95% CI: [0.23:-0.01], P = 0.03). This shows a slight advantage of the WFG over the WFO method. The visual performance showed similarity and excellent refractive outcomes in both WFO and WFG PRK. No significant statistical differences between the two approaches. On further comparison, there was a slight advantage of the WFG over the WFO method.

Comparison between Wavefront-optimized and corneal Wavefront-guided Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in moderate to high astigmatism

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical outcomes of wavefront-optimized (WFO) transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (trans-PRK) and corneal wavefront-guided (CWFG) trans-PRK for myopic eyes with moderate to high astigmatism.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-six eyes (196 patients) with moderate to high astigmatism (≥ 1.75 D) treated with WFO or CWFG trans-PRK (101 and 95 eyes, respectively) were retrospectively registered. Safety, efficacy, predictability, vector analysis, and corneal aberrations were compared between groups preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At postoperative 6 months, the mean logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity was similar in the WFO (- 0.07 ± 0.08) and CWFG (- 0.07 ± 0.07) groups. Safety, efficacy, and predictability of refractive and visual outcomes were also similar. The correction indices were 1.02 ± 0.14 and 1.03 ± 0.13 in the WFO and CWFG groups, respectively, with no significant difference. The absolute values of the angle of error were significantly higher in the WFO group (2.28 ± 2.44 vs. 1.40 ± 1.40; P = 0.002). Corneal total root mean square higher-order aberrations and corneal spherical aberrations increased postoperatively in both groups; however, the change was smaller in the CWFG group. Corneal coma showed a significant increase postoperatively only in the WFO group.

CONCLUSIONS

WFO and CWFG trans-PRK are safe and effective for correcting moderate to high astigmatism. However, CWFG trans-PRK provides a more predictable astigmatism correction axis and fewer induced corneal aberrations.