A prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave ® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVue™ STAR S4 IR™ in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK): analysis of visual outcomes and higher order aberrations

Functional optical zone after wavefront-optimized versus wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis

Background

Many studies have used functional optical zone (FOZ) as a measure to compare different refractive laser treatment modalities. However, to our knowledge, no study has compared wavefront- optimized (WFO) and wavefront-guided (WFG) laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) using FOZ. We compared the FOZ after WFO versus WFG LASIK in patients with myopia and myopic astigmatism.

Methods

In this prospective comparative study, we included 100 myopic eyes of 50 patients with or without astigmatism. They were divided into two groups according to the platform used: WFO or WFG femtosecond LASIK. Using Holladay's equivalent keratometry reading (EKR) report of Pentacam HR, FOZ was defined as a zone centered on the pupil center with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.5 D, around the mean EKR. The differences in FOZ between the two platforms were analyzed at 3 months postoperatively. Visual acuity, refractive error, corneal asphericity (Q-value), and root mean square of higher-order aberrations (RMS for HOAs) were evaluated and compared.

Results

The mean (SD) of patient age was 26.64 (5.67) years. The preoperative characteristics of the two groups were comparable (all P > 0.05). The intended optical zone (IOZ) was 6 mm in both groups. The mean laser ablation depth was significantly greater in the WFG group (18 µm per D) than in the WFO group (16 µm per D) (P = 0.035). At 3 months postoperatively, the mean (SD) of FOZ diameter was 4.32 (0.94) mm (71.99% [15.68%] of intended optical zone) in the WFO group and 4.16 (1.13) mm (69.33% [18.78%] of intended optical zone) in the WFG group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.622). The change in corneal asphericity was greater in the WFG group than in the WFO group (P = 0.034). Postoperative mean corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, and RMS for HOAs showed no significant difference between the two groups (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions

We found that WFG LASIK resulted in greater ablation depth and change in corneal asphericity than WFO LASIK at 3 months postoperatively. However, there was no significant difference in FOZ diameter, refractive error, and RMS for HOAs between the two groups. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Wavefront-guided myopic laser in situ keratomileusis with a high-resolution Hartmann-Shack aberrometer and a new nomogram

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual, refractive, aberrometric, and patient-reported outcomes of wavefront-guided (WFG) myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) using a high-resolution Hartmann-Shack aberrometer (iDesign Advanced WaveScan system) with a new nomogram and to determine whether the new nomogram resolved the mild undercorrection that occurs with the manufacturer's default settings.

SETTING

Three private LASIK practices.

DESIGN

Prospective, open-label, noncomparative, multicenter study.

METHODS

One hundred ninety eyes of 95 patients underwent bilateral WFG LASIK for the correction of myopia or myopic astigmatism. A new nomogram was used, which effectively adjusted the wavefront-measured refraction sphere up or down to equal the manifest refraction sphere. Patients were followed up for 6 months.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients completed the final follow up. At 6 months, 162 (96.4%) of 168 eyes achieved monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. No eye lost 2 or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity. The safety and efficacy indices were 1.12 and 1.09, respectively; 164 (98%) of 168 eyes had manifest refraction spherical equivalent within ±0.50 diopters (D) of emmetropia, and 154 (92%) of 168 eyes had residual manifest refractive astigmatism of 0.50 D or less. Fewer patients experienced burning, stinging, soreness, and irritation postoperatively than preoperatively. Eighty-one (96%) of 84 patients reported improved quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

WFG myopic LASIK using a high-resolution Hartmann-Shack aberrometer and a new nomogram resolved the undercorrection with the manufacturer's default settings. The treatment was safe and effective with excellent visual and refractive outcomes, high patient satisfaction, and improved quality of life.

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.

Study of change in contrast sensitivity in relation to depth of ablation after wavefront optimized myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis

Purpose:

The aim of this work was to study the change in contrast sensitivity (CS) in relation to depth of stromal ablation after wavefront-optimized (WFO) myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

Methods:

This was as prospective, longitudinal, comparative study. The study participants were divided into two groups: Group 1 ≤50 μ ablation depth; 60 eyes and group 2 >50 μ ablation depth; 60 eyes. All underwent WFO LASIK. Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA) and CS were measured preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 week, 2 weeks, and 2 and 6 months. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), Unpaired t test and one-way repeated measures ANOVA were used to test differences across time periods within each treatment group. A value of P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results:

The mean ablation depths in groups 1 and 2 were 39.30 μ ± 7.22 μ and 69.90 μ ± 12.09 μ, respectively; the maximum depth was 94.62 μ. In group 1, the preoperative mean CS was 1.91 ± 0.07, which improved postoperatively at 1 week (1.93 ± 0.06) and remained stable in subsequent follow-ups (1.94 ± 0.05). In group 2, the mean CS preoperatively was 1.87 ± 0.12, which postoperatively at 1 week and 6 months were 1.93 ± 0.07 and 1.94 ± 0.03, respectively (P < 0.05). Between the groups, preoperative CS was significantly different (P = 0.04), but the change in CS post-LASIK was insignificant (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

There was a significant improvement in CS after WFO myopic LASIK in all patients irrespective of ablation depth (up to 94.62 μ).

One-Year Outcomes From a Prospective, Randomized, Eye-to-Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized PRK in Myopia

PURPOSE

To compare wavefront-guided (WFG) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in patients with myopia using objective and self-reported quality of vision outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 40 eyes from 20 participants were prospectively randomized to receive WFG or WFO PRK with the WaveLight Allegretto Eye-Q 400-Hz excimer laser (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX). The primary outcome measured was uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), less than 5% and less than 25% contrast visual acuity, changes in higher order aberrations (HOAs), and self-reported quality of vision. Patients completed a validated, Rasch-tested, linear-scaled 30-item questionnaire assessing the quality of vision and visual symptoms preoperatively and at each visit.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference (P > .05) between the WFG and WFO groups in the frequency of attaining a refractive error within ±0.25 diopters of emmetropia, achieving postoperative UDVA of 20/16 or better or 20/20 or better, losing one or two or more lines or maintaining their preoperative CDVA, or differences in UDVA, CDVA, low contrast acuity, or HOAs. None of the measured quality of vision parameters exhibited statistically significant differences between the groups preoperatively or at 12 months postoperatively (all P > .05). The WFG and WFO groups each showed significant improvement in multiple subjective measures compared to pretreatment values in the same eye. A total of 12.5% of patients preferred their WFG PRK eye, 31.25% preferred their WFO PRK eye, and 56.25% had no preference at 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

WFG and WFO PRK using the Alcon Wave-Light Allegretto Eye-Q 400-Hz excimer laser platform provide similar results and self-reported visual symptoms in myopic eyes at 12 months postoperatively. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(3):160-168.].

Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized Laser in Situ Keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes in wavefront-optimized (WFO) laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) to high-resolution wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK.

DESIGN

Randomized, fellow eye controlled, clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 200 eyes of 100 patients with myopia or compound myopic astigmatism undergoing bilateral LASIK between October 2015 and February 2017 underwent wavefront-optimized (WFO) LASIK in 1 eye and wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK in the fellow eye. Each eye was evaluated for uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), contrast sensitivity, refractive error, and wavefront aberrometry. Outcome measurement primarily UDVA at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were safety, predictability, stability, refractive error, CDVA, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations at 12 months.

RESULTS

WFG LASIK had higher levels of supervision and better contrast sensitivity compared to WFO. Both types had excellent postoperative UDVA results, without a significant difference in either mean UDVA or frequency of achieving a specified UDVA, for example, 20/16 or better (all P > 0.05). The mean gain in lines of CDVA was significantly higher in the WFG than in the WFO group (0.80 ± 0.75 vs 0.62 ± 0.72, respectively; P = 0.04). The WFG cohort had significantly better contrast sensitivity for mean and frequency of achieving >20/40 for <5% low-contrast sensitivity (37.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.5-46.7 vs 24.7%; 95% CI, 16.2-33.3, respectively; P = 0.01) and >20/32 for <25% low-contrast sensitivity (10.3%; 95% CI, 4.3-16.4 vs 4%, respectively; 95% CI, 0.0-8.1, respectively; P = 0.04). The WFO group had a significantly higher frequency of <0.25 diopters (D) of refractive astigmatism at 12 months (82.5%; 95% CI, 75.0-90.0; vs 72.1%, respectively; 95% CI, 63.2-81.2; P = 0.02) but not <0.50 D (95.6%; 95% CI, 91.9-99.8; vs 96.9, respectively; 95% CI, 93.5-100; P = 0.61). The WFG group was significantly closer to emmetropia for both sphere and spherical equivalents at all time points. Trefoil was significantly lower in the WFG group and was also significantly lower than preoperative measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Wavefront-optimized and high-resolution wavefront-guided LASIK achieve excellent visual outcomes. Nonetheless, treatments based on a high-resolution aberrometer appear to offer superior results in some regards.

Myopic Laser-Assisted Subepithelial Keratectomy (LASEK) outcomes using three different excimer laser platforms: a retrospective observational study

Background

To compare the visual and refractive outcomes after myopic LASEK using three different excimer lasers and standardized surgical and mitomycin C (MMC) application protocols.

Methods

In this retrospective, observational cohort study, we examined 122 eyes treated with Allegretto, 135 eyes treated with Esiris and 137 eyes treated with Technolas excimer lasers. All eyes were treated under the same surgical protocol, and a standardized MMC dosage was used. The three groups were refraction-matched, and both visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated at 1 and 7 days and 1 and 3 months after surgery.

Results

At 3 months postsurgery, Allegretto provided significantly better outcomes than Esiris and Technolas in terms of postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (1.11 ± 0.2 vs 1.01 ± 0.2 vs 0.98 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0001), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (1.13 ± 0.2 vs 1.10 ± 0.1 vs 1.04 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0001), residual sphere (− 0.01 ± 0.2 vs + 0.29 ± 0.7 vs + 0.27 ± 0.6) (P = 0.0001), and efficacy index (0.99 ± 0.2 vs 0.90 ± 0.2 vs 0.91 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0004).

Conclusions

We found slightly better visual and refractive outcomes in the Allegretto group at 3 months post-op after LASEK with MMC to correct myopia.

Visual Outcomes and Higher Order Aberrations Following LASIK on Eyes with Low Myopia and Astigmatism

Background:

Laser-Assisted in situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) can induce corneal aberrations that can impact vision and patient satisfaction. Recent developments in laser technologies have helped minimise these aberrations.

Objective:

To assess the quality of vision and change in Higher-Order Aberrations (HOAs) following wavefront-optimized LASIK in low-myopic astigmatic patients.

Methods:

LASIK was performed on a total of 76 eyes in patients with myopia <4.0 D and cylinder <2.0 D using the WaveLight® EX500 excimer and FS200 femtosecond laser platform. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and HOAs were measured at 1 and 3 months postoperatively and compared to preoperative values. Subjective quality of vision was assessed pre- and postoperatively using a VF14 questionnaire.

Results:

Mean postoperative Spherical Equivalent (SE) was -0.09 ± 0.26 µm with 95% of patients within ± 0.5 D of attempted SE. Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better for 96% of patients. Contrast sensitivity increased against horizontal and vertical gratings at all spatial frequencies except for vertical gratings at 18 cycles/degree. Spherical aberration and total HOA increased by 0.085 µm and 0.13 µm respectively. The mean VF14 score increased from 89.2 ± 16.7% to 99 ± 1.4% postoperatively.

Conclusion:

LASIK performed using the WaveLight® EX500 excimer and WaveLight® FS200 laser platform provided improved contrast sensitivity and visual acuity with minimal introduction of HOAs, making it a suitable platform for low myopic astigmatic patients.

Comparative analysis of the efficacy of astigmatic correction after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK in low and moderate myopic eyes

AIM

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of the astigmatic correction achieved with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in eyes with myopic astigmatism using wavefront-guided (WFG) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) ablation profiles.

METHODS

Prospective study included 221 eyes undergoing LASIK: 99 and 122 eyes with low and moderate myopic astigmatism (low and moderate myopia groups). Two subgroups were differentiated in each group according to the ablation profile: WFG subgroup, 109 eyes (45/64, low/moderate myopia groups) treated using the Advanced CustomVue platform (Abbott Medical Optics Inc.), and WFO subgroup, 112 eyes (54/58, low/moderate myopia groups) treated using the EX-500 platform (Alcon). Clinical outcomes were evaluated during a 6-month follow-up, including a vector analysis of astigmatic changes.

RESULTS

Significantly better postoperative uncorrected visual acuity and efficacy index was found in the WFG subgroups of each group (P≤0.041). Postoperative spherical equivalent and cylinder were significantly higher in WFO subgroups (P≤0.003). In moderate myopia group, a higher percentage of eyes with a postoperative cylinder ≤0.25 D was found in the WFG subgroup (90.6% vs 65.5%, P=0.002). In low and moderate myopia groups, the difference vector was significantly higher in the WFO subgroup compared to WFG (P<0.001). In moderate myopia group, the magnitude (P=0.008) and angle of error (P<0.001) were also significantly higher in the WFO subgroup. Significantly less induction of high order aberrations were found with WFG treatments in both low and moderate myopia groups (P≤0.006).

CONCLUSION

A more efficacious correction of myopic astigmatism providing a better visual outcome is achieved with WFG LASIK compared to WFO LASIK.

Comparison of femtosecond and excimer laser platforms available for corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The evolution of laser technology has left today's refractive surgeon with a choice between multiple laser platforms. The purpose of this review is to compare currently available femtosecond and excimer laser platforms, providing a summary of current evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Femtosecond lasers create LASIK flaps with better accuracy, uniformity, and predictability than mechanical microkeratomes. Newer higher-frequency femtosecond platforms elicit less inflammation, producing better visual outcomes. SMILE achieved similar safety, efficacy, and predictability as LASIK with greater preservation of corneal nerves and biomechanical strength. The emergence of wavefront technology has resulted in improved excimer laser treatments. Comparisons of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized treatments suggest that there is an advantage to using wavefront-guided platforms in terms of visual acuity and quality of vision. Topography-guided ablations are another well tolerated and effective option, especially in eyes with highly irregular corneas.

SUMMARY

Advances in femtosecond and excimer laser technology have not only improved the safety and efficacy of refractive procedures, but have also led to the development of promising new treatment modalities, such as SMILE and the use of wavefront-guided and topography-guided ablation. Future studies and continued technological progress will help to better define the optimal use of these treatment platforms.

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

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).

Comparison of short-term refractive surgery outcomes after wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided LASIK

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare visual and refractive outcomes after laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery for the correction of myopia or myopic astigmatism using 3 different treatment protocols.

METHODS

We included 736 eyes of 369 patients (age 18-62 years) divided into 3 groups: 235 eyes of 118 patients (MEL80 group) undergoing LASIK using optimized aspheric ablation profiles (MEL80 excimer laser; Carl Zeiss Meditec), 248 eyes of 124 patients (Wavescan group) undergoing wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK (STAR S4IR excimer laser + Wavescan aberrometer; Abbott Medical Optics), and 253 eyes of 127 patients (iDesign group) undergoing WFG LASIK (STAR S4IR excimer laser + iDesign system; Abbott Medical Optics). Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated 2 months after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 91% (215/235), 95% (237/248), and 99% (251/253) of eyes achieved a postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR (≈20/20) in the MEL80, Wavescan, and iDesign groups, respectively. Postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was within ±0.5 D in 95% (223/235), 98% (242/248), and 100% (253/253) of eyes in these same 3 groups, respectively. Likewise, manifest cylinder was below 0.50 D in 95% (223/235), 97% (241/248), and 100% (253/253) of eyes. Significant differences in postoperative SE and cylinder were found between the MEL80 and iDesign groups (p&lt;0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

All evaluated LASIK treatment protocols are predictable and effective for the correction of myopia. The treatment planned with a high resolution aberrometer obtained the best postoperative refractive outcomes.

Comparison of efficacy, safety, and predictability of laser in situ keratomileusis using two laser suites

Purpose

The main aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and predictability of femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis performed by two different laser suites in the treatment of myopia for up to 6 months.

Methods

In this two-site retrospective nonrandomized study, myopic eyes that underwent laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis using IntraLase FS 60 kHz formed group 1 and those using WaveLight FS200 femtosecond laser system formed group 2. Ablation was performed with Visx Star S4 IR and WaveLight EX500 Excimer lasers, respectively, in groups 1 and 2. Both groups were well matched for age, sex, and mean level of preoperative refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE). Uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, and MRSE were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after treatment.

Results

Fifty-six eyes of 28 patients were included in the study. At 6-month follow-up postop, 78.6% of eyes in group 1 and 92.8% of eyes in group 2 achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better (P=0.252). 35.7% and 50% in group 1 and group 2, respectively, gained one line (P=0.179). No eye lost lines of corrected distance visual acuity. Twenty-five eyes in group 1 (92.7%) and 27 eyes in group 2 (96.3%) had MRSE within ±0.5 D in the 6-month follow-up (P>0.999). The mean efficacy index at 6 months was similar in group 1 and group 2 (mean 1.10±0.12 [standard deviation] vs 1.10±0.1) (P=0.799). The mean safety index was similar in group 1 and group 2 (mean 1.10±0.10 [standard deviation] vs 1.10±0.09) (P=0.407). Conclusion: The outcomes were excellent between the two laser suites. There were no significant differences at 6-month follow-up postop between the two laser systems.

Femtosecond Laser-assisted Wavefront-guided LASIK Using a Newer Generation Aberrometer: 1-Year Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate long-term outcomes of wavefront-guided LASIK with a new advanced aberrometer.

METHODS

Fifty eyes of 25 LASIK candidates with myopia and/or astigmatism underwent aberrometry (iDesign Advanced WaveScan; Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA), femtosecond laser-assisted flap creation, and excimer ablation. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), spherical equivalent (SEQ), and astigmatism outcomes were measured at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The sphere, cylinder, and SEQ were -4.29 ± 1.94, -0.75 ± 0.76, and -4.67 ± 2.01 diopters (D), respectively, preoperatively and 0.03 ± 0.13, -0.09 ± 0.13, and -0.02 ± 0.14 D, respectively, 12 months postoperatively (P < .001). The postoperative log-MAR CDVA (-0.07 ± 0.09) and UDVA (-0.04 ± 0.09) were better than the preoperative logMAR CDVA (0.07 ± 0.10) (P < .01). Ninety-four percent achieved a 12-month logMAR UDVA of 0.0 or less (20/20 or better Snellen) and 100% achieved 0.3 or less (20/40 or better Snellen), compared to a preoperative logMAR CDVA of 0.0 or worse in 54% and 0.3 or less in 100%. Postoperative SEQ was within ±0.50 D in 98%. The regression plot for achieved (y) vs intended (x) correction at 12 months was (y = 0.98 × - 0.09, R(2) = 0.99, P < .001). No cases lost CDVA. The target and 12-month surgically induced astigmatisms (TIA and SIA) were 0.91 ± 0.75 and 0.82 ± 0.70, respectively. The regression plot between them was SIA = 0.91 × TIA - 0.01 (R(2) = 0.95, P < .001). The angle of error was -0.29° ± 12.6° and index of success was 0.13 ± 0.25. There was only a mild, nonsignificant increase of higher-order aberrations after surgery, and the postoperative wavefront was stable on follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Wavefront-guided LASIK with iDesign aberrometry appears to be safe and effective in this long-term, consecutive case series.

LASIK-induced aberrations: comparing corneal and whole-eye measurements

PURPOSE

To compare the change in aberrations produced by laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) measured by either front surface corneal aberrometry or Hartmann-Shack whole-eye aberrometry.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case series from consecutive patients treated with LASIK at the London Vision Clinic, London, UK. Corneal and ocular wavefront data were collected before and after LASIK for myopia and hyperopia. To control for centration of corneal and whole-eye aberration measurements, only patients with pupil offset (measured as the distance between the corneal vertex and the entrance pupil center) of 0.25 mm or less were recruited. Corneal front surface wavefront was obtained from a Placido-based corneal topography system (Atlas), and whole-eye wavefront was measured by Hartmann-Shack aberrometry (WASCA) before and at least 3 months after surgery. All aberrations were calculated up to the fourth order for the 6-mm pupil diameter. Change in HORMS (higher-order root mean square [RMS]) and all individual Zernike coefficients from the second to the fourth order were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred myopic eyes and 50 hyperopic eyes were included for analysis. For myopic LASIK, the change measured by corneal aberrometry or whole-eye aberrometry differed on average by 0.077 μm for HORMS, by 0.024 μm for secondary astigmatism, and by 0.065 μm for spherical aberration (p ≤ 0.003). For hyperopic LASIK, there was no statistically significant difference between the change measured by corneal aberrometry and whole-eye aberrometry for third- and fourth-order individual Zernike coefficients (p ≥ 0.034). However, the change in HORMS measured by whole-eye aberrometry was 0.095 μm greater than that measured by corneal aberrometry (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that when measuring the change in higher-order aberrations induced by LASIK, corneal front surface aberrometry measurement was not interchangeable with whole-eye ocular aberrometry.

Comparison of visual outcomes after variable spot scanning ablation versus wavefront-optimized myopic LASIK

PURPOSE

To compare the refractive and visual outcomes of variable spot scanning ablation versus the wavefront-optimized ablation for myopia and myopic astigmatism.

METHODS

Fifty patients with myopia who underwent LASIK (100 eyes) were divided into two equal groups. Myopic correction performed using the variable spot scanning (VSS) ablation with the VISX STAR S4/IR platform (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (VSS group) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) ablation profile with the WaveLight Allegretto Wave Eye-Q platform (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) (WFO group). Manifest refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity, and corrected distance visual acuity were obtained preoperatively and 1 day and 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Wavefront measurement and contrast sensitivity testing were done preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Postoperative mean refractive spherical equivalent was -0.14 ± 0.2 diopters for the VSS group and -0.15 ± 0.28 diopters for the WFO group. Forty-eight eyes of the VSS group and 47 eyes of the WFO group were within ±0.5 diopters. Postoperative mean corrected distance visual acuity was 1.05 ± 0.13 for the VSS group and 1.06 ± 0.12 for the WFO group. The postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was 1.01 ± 0.16 for the VSS group and 1.01 ± 0.11 for the WFO group. The safety index was 1.12 for the VSS group and 1.06 for the WFO group, whereas the efficacy index was 1.07 for the VSS group and 1.01 for the WFO group. The mean induced positive spherical aberration was 0.041 ± 0.046 µm for the VSS group and 0.195 ± 0.171 µm for the WFO group (P < .001). Mesopic contrast sensitivity testing showed no statistically significant differences between groups at all tested spatial frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Both VSS and WFO treatments showed similar refractive and visual outcomes. Both induced significant positive spherical aberration, significantly more with WFO.

One-year eye-to-eye comparison of wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis in hyperopes

Background

To compare wavefront (WF)-guided and WF-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in hyperopes with respect to the parameters of safety, efficacy, predictability, refractive error, uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and higher order aberrations.

Methods

Twenty-two eyes of eleven participants with hyperopia with or without astigmatism were prospectively randomized to receive WF-guided LASIK with the VISX CustomVue S4 IR or WF-optimized LASIK with the WaveLight Allegretto Eye-Q 400 Hz. LASIK flaps were created using the 150-kHz IntraLase iFS. Evaluations included measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, <5% and <25% contrast sensitivity, and WF aberrometry. Patients also completed a questionnaire detailing symptoms on a quantitative grading scale.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any of the variables studied after 12 months of follow-up (all P>0.05).

Conclusion

This comparative case series of 11 subjects with hyperopia showed that WF-guided and WF-optimized LASIK had similar clinical outcomes at 12 months.

Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis for patients with myopia: a prospective randomized contralateral eye study

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, fellow-eye-controlled study.

METHODS

The setting was a single academic institution. The study population included 110 eyes of 55 patients with myopia with and without astigmatism. One eye of each patient was randomized to undergo wavefront-guided LASIK by the AMO Visx CustomVue S4 IR excimer laser system; the fellow eye received wavefront-optimized LASIK by the Alcon Allegretto Wave Eye-Q 400 Hz excimer laser system. Corneal flaps were constructed using the Intralase FS 60 Hz femtosecond laser. Patients were followed at postoperative months 1, 3, 6, and 12. The study's main outcome measures were uncorrected visual acuity, stability of refractive correction, contrast sensitivity, and wavefront aberrometry.

RESULTS

After 12 months, LASIK eyes had achieved visual acuity of 20/12.5 or better (30 eyes, 56%) in the wavefront-guided group compared to those receiving wavefront-optimized treatment (22 eyes, 41%) (P = 0.016). Average spherical equivalent refractions were -0.13 ± 0.46 diopters in wavefront-guided eyes whereas in wavefront-optimized eyes the refractions were -0.41 ± 0.38 diopters at 12 months. Wavefront-guided eyes also achieved better best-corrected visual acuity at both the 5% and 25% contrast levels (P = 0.022 and P = 0.004, respectively). There were no differences in levels of residual astigmatism (P = 0.798) or in higher order aberrations (P = 0.869).

CONCLUSIONS

Both wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized treatments are able to correct myopia safely and effectively in eyes with and without astigmatism. However, wavefront-guided treatment platforms appear to offer significant advantages in terms of residual refractive error, uncorrected distance acuity and contrast sensitivity.

One-year outcomes from a prospective, randomized, eye-to-eye comparison of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK in myopes

OBJECTIVE

To compare wavefront (WF)-guided and WF-optimized LASIK in myopes.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, eye-to-eye study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 72 eyes of 36 participants with myopia with or without astigmatism.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to receive WF-guided or WF-optimized LASIK with the WaveLight Allegretto Eye-Q 400-Hz excimer laser platform (Alcon, Inc., Hüenberg, Switzerland). LASIK flaps were created using the 150-kHz IntraLase iFS (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA). Evaluations included measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), <5% and <25% contrast sensitivity, and WF aberrometry. Patients also completed a validated questionnaire detailing symptoms on a quantitative scale.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Safety, efficacy, predictability, refractive error, UDVA, CDVA, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations (HOAs).

RESULTS

The frequency with which the WF-guided and WF-optimized groups achieved postoperative UDVA of ≥ 20/16 or ≥ 20/20 and the frequency with which the groups lost 1 or 2 or more lines or maintained their preoperative CDVA were not statistically different from each other (all P > 0.05). The frequency with which the WF-guided group attained a refractive error within ± 0.25 diopters of emmetropia was higher than in the WF-optimized group (67.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 50.4-84.8 vs. 41.2%, 95% CI, 23.2-59.2; P = 0.03). The WF-guided group's mean UDVA was better than the WF-optimized group's UDVA by approximately 1 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study line (-0.17 ± 0.11 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], slightly <20/12 Snellen vs. -0.13 ± 0.12, slightly >20/16; P = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in contrast sensitivity, astigmatism, coma, or higher-order root mean square error between the groups (all P > 0.05), but the WF-guided group had less trefoil compared with the WF-optimized group (0.14 ± 0.07 vs. 0.20 ± 0.09; P < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in subjective parameters between the groups (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Wavefront-guided and WF-optimized LASIK using the Alcon WaveLight Allegretto Eye-Q 400-Hz excimer laser platform provide similar results in myopic patients; however, the WF-guided approach may yield small gains in visual acuity, predictability, and HOAs.