Contrast sensitivity after zyoptix tissue saving LASIK and standard LASIK for myopia with 6-month followup

Clinical Evaluation of LASEK for High Myopia Correction between the Triple-A Profile and the Zyoptix Tissue Saving Profile

Purpose

To compare the effects of correcting high myopia using the MEL®90 Triple-A profile LASEK at a 500 Hz pulse rate (Triple-A group) versus the Zyoptix tissue-saving ablations of Technolas 217z laser platform at 100 Hz (TS group).

Methods

This retrospective study included 50 eyes in the Triple-A group and 42 eyes in the TS group with manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -6 diopters (D) to -10 D. We compared uncorrected distance visual acuity, MRSE, corrected distance visual acuity, and postoperative complications at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.

Results

At 6 months after refractive surgery, the efficacy index of Triple-A group was significantly higher than that of the TS group (1.03 ± 0.12 vs 1.00 ± 0.11, P=0.04). The MRSE postoperatively in the Triple-A group was significantly lower than that in the TS group (0.25 ± 0.18 vs 0.38 ± 0.23, P < 0.01). The safety indices in the two groups were almost the same after 6 months of surgery (1.03 ± 0.07 vs 1.04 ± 0.11, P=0.63). The proportion of eyes which achieved ±0.13 D was significantly higher in the Triple-A group than that in the TS group at 1 month (80% vs 59.5%, P=0.03), 3 months (82% vs 61.9%, P=0.03) and 6 months (84% vs 64.3%, P=0.03). The changes in refraction 6 months after surgery comparing with 1 month after surgery were 0.12 ± 0.10 D in the Triple-A group and 0.13 ± 0.08 D in the TS group (P=0.56). All (100%) of the patients in the Triple-A group and 50% of the patients in the TS group had a UDVA of 20/16 at 6 months after surgery (P < 0.01). The induced spherical aberrations and total HOAs in the Triple-A group were significantly lower than those in the TS group (0.17 ± 0.02 μm vs 0.23 ± 0.02 μm, P < 0.01; 0.20 ± 0.04 μm vs 0.39 ± 0.03 μm, P < 0.01) at 6 months after surgery. The mean reduced corneal thickness was 113.06 ± 10.5 μm in the Triple-A profile group and 121.43 ± 23.46 μm in the TS group (P=0.02). No patient in either group had haze and high intraocular pressure 6 months after surgery.

Conclusion

For treatment of high-myopia patients, the Triple-A profile was more effective, predictable, and accurate than the Zyoptix tissue-saving profile. Meanwhile, the Triple-A profile had less induced spherical aberrations, total HOAs, and cornea ablation depth than the Zyoptix tissue-saving profile. Patients in the Triple-A group with 500 Hz pulse rate treatment achieved superior results. The two surgical procedures were equivalent in terms of safety and stability.

Refractive Outcomes, Contrast Sensitivity, HOAs, and Patient Satisfaction in Moderate Myopia: Wavefront-Optimized Versus Tissue-Saving PRK

PURPOSE

To compare refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and patient satisfaction after photorefractive keratectomy for correction of moderate myopia with two methods: tissue saving versus wavefront optimized.

METHODS

In this prospective, comparative study, 152 eyes (80 patients) with moderate myopia with and without astigmatism were randomly divided into two groups: the tissue-saving group (Technolas 217z Zyoptix laser; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) (76 eyes of 39 patients) or the wavefront-optimized group (WaveLight Allegretto Wave Eye-Q laser; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) (76 eyes of 41 patients). Preoperative and 3-month postoperative refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, HOAs, and patient satisfaction were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean spherical equivalent was -4.50 ± 1.02 diopters. No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups in terms of uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity and spherical equivalent preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were seen in the amount of preoperative to postoperative contrast sensitivity changes between the two groups in photopic and mesopic conditions. HOAs and Q factor increased in both groups postoperatively (P = .001), with the tissue-saving method causing more increases in HOAs (P = .007) and Q factor (P = .039). Patient satisfaction was comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both platforms were effective in correcting moderate myopia with or without astigmatism. No difference in refractive outcome, contrast sensitivity changes, and patient satisfaction between the groups was observed. Postoperatively, the tissue-saving method caused a higher increase in HOAs and Q factor compared to the wavefront-optimized method, which could be due to larger optical zone sizes in the tissue-saving group.

Designing a new test for contrast sensitivity function measurement with iPad

PURPOSE

To introduce a new application (ClinicCSF) to measure Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) with tablet devices, and to compare it against the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT).

METHODS

A total of 42 subjects were arranged in two groups of 21 individuals. Different versions of the ClinicCSF (.v1 and .v2) were used to measure the CSF of each group with the same iPad and the results were compared with those measured with the FACT. The agreements between ClinicCSF and FACT for spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were represented by Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in CSF of both groups were found due to the change of the ClinicCSF version (p<0.05) while no differences were manifested with the use of the same FACT test. The best agreement with the FACT was found with the ClinicCSF.v2 with no significant differences in all the evaluated spatial frequencies. However, the 95% confidence intervals for mean differences between ClinicCSF and FACT were lower for the version which incorporated a staircase psychophysical method (ClinicCSF.v1), mainly for spatial frequencies of 6, 12 and 18 cpd.

CONCLUSIONS

The new ClinicCSF application for iPad retina showed no significant differences with FACT test when the same contrast sensitivity steps were used. In addition, it is shown that the accurateness of a vision screening could be improved with the use of an appropriate psychophysical method.