Advanced corneal surface ablation efficacy in myopia: changes in higher order aberrations

Effect of Iris registration on visual outcome in wavefront-guided LASEK for myopic astigmatism

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of iris registration (IR) on visual outcomes in wavefront-guided LASEK for myopic astigmatism.

METHODS

The retrospective chart review was performed for wavefront-guided LASEK using VISX Star S4 in patients with myopic astigmatism (cylinder ≥ 1.00 diopter[D]). Eyes were divided into IR group (LASEK with IR at the time of surgery) and Non-IR group (LASEK without IR system + failed-IR engagement during LASEK). Visual acuity (VA), astigmatism, higher-order aberration (HOA), and contrast sensitivity were assessed preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. The IR and Non-IR groups were subcategorized depending on the spherical equivalent (lower myopia ≤-5.00 D vs. higher myopia >-5.00 D) for the comparison of HOA changes.

RESULTS

Postoperative uncorrected VAs showed no differences between IR (n = 30) and Non-IR (n = 46). In astigmatic vector analyses, no differences were noted in the mean magnitude of error and the mean angle of error between two groups. There were no differences in postoperative total HOA, spherical aberration (SA), coma, and trefoil between the groups, either. The total HOA and SA increased in both groups, while coma increased only in Non-IR. In higher myopia, ΔRMS of coma was smaller in IR. Preoperative and postoperative total HOA were linearly correlated in Non-IR, but not for IR. Contrast sensitivity of 12 cycles per degree improved in both groups.

CONCLUSION

IR had similar outcomes to conventional trackers in wavefront-guided LASEK, with less tendency of inducing coma, especially in higher myopia.

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.

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 clinical outcomes in PRK with a standard and aspherical optimized profile: a full case analysis of 100 eyes with 1-year follow-up

PURPOSE

One hundred eyes from 55 adult patients with myopia were retrospectively studied to determine the comparative safety, efficacy, and predictability of aberration smart ablation (ASA) and a new advanced ablation algorithm (Triple-A) using the MEL(®) 80 excimer laser.

METHODS

Fifty myopic eyes with a manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) between -1.0 diopters (D) and -9.75 D were consecutively treated with photorefractive keratec-tomy ASA, and 50 myopic eyes with an MRSE between -1.38 D and -11.0 D with photorefractive keratectomy Triple-A. Uncorrected distance visual acuity, MRSE, the absolute value of the cylinder, corrected distance visual acuity, and postoperative complications at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months (1 year) were descriptively analyzed and compared at 1 year.

RESULTS

After 12 months, the MRSE variance was statistically significantly better in patients triaged to receive Triple-A compared with patients receiving ASA (ASA, ±0.7 D; Triple-A, ±0.15 D; P<0.001). Furthermore, no patient in the Triple-A group had any cylinder postoperatively. Patients in the Triple-A treatment arm achieved a superior result. No statistically significant difference in the two treatment arms was noted for the analysis of the mean MRSE at 12 months (P=0.78).

CONCLUSION

Triple-A was more effective than standard aspherical surgical intervention in a number of treatment outcome parameters (eg, MRSE, astigmatism, efficacy index). The two surgical procedures were equivalent in terms of safety.

Prospective randomized contralateral eye evaluation of subjective quality of vision after wavefront-guided or wavefront- optimized photorefractive keratectomy

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of wavefront-guided (WFG) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) on patient perceived quality of vision.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients (142 eyes) were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, fellow eye controlled study. One eye was randomized to undergo WFG PRK treatment by the AMO Visx CustomVue S4 IR excimer laser system (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Santa Clara, CA) and the fellow eye received WFO PRK treatment by the Alcon Allegretto Wave Eye-Q 400 Hz excimer laser system (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX). Patients answered questionnaires on their visual symptoms and quality of vision preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Patients in both groups reported better vision compared to baseline from 3 months onward (mean change in score of 1.56 to 2.51 in the WFO group and 1.54 to 2.28 in the WFG group, P ⩽ .003). Both groups experienced less nighttime glare from 6 months onward (P ⩽ .030). Halos, double vision, and visual clarity were initially worse (P ⩽ .025) but not significantly different after 1 month. Haze and fluctuating vision resolved after 3 months. Visual symptoms were similar between the two groups at all times (P ⩾ .059) except at 6 months, when patients felt their WFG eyes had more excellent vision (P = .029). A composite of all symptoms was also similar between the groups until 12 months when patients had fewer symptoms in their WFO eye (P = .044).

CONCLUSIONS

One year after surgery, patient self-reported visual symptoms were not significantly different in eyes receiving WFG or WFO PRK. However, the average of all symptoms was lower in eyes receiving wavefront-optimized treatment.

Effects of advanced surface ablations and intralase femtosecond LASIK on higher order aberrations and visual acuity outcome

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To study the changes in wavefront (ocular) and corneal higher order aberrations (HOAs) and visual acuity (VA) outcome following wavefront-guided advanced surface ablation (ASA) techniques and intralase femtosecond LASIK (iLASIK) in myopia treatment.

METHODS

Ocular aberration and corneal topography of 240 eyes in the ASA techniques (this was equally divided into a flap-on group where the epithelial flap was preserved and reapplied to the photoablated stromal bed and a flap-off group when the epithelial flap was discarded during the procedure), and 138 eyes in the iLASIK group were obtained before and 3 months following treatment. The correlation of aberrations with best spectacle-corrected visual acuity was analyzed.

RESULTS

At 3 months, there was statistically significant (P < 0.001) surgically induced increase in spherical aberration (SA) in each of the techniques for both ocular and corneal analysis. iLASIK induced significantly less ocular and corneal HOAs (P < 0.001). The mean manifest refractive spherical equivalent was closer to attempted correction compared to other groups (P < 0.001). Eighty-three eyes (70%) of flap-on, 80 (67%) flap-off and 94 eyes (68%) in the iLASIK group achieved 20/20 uncorrected VA. Fifteen eyes (11%) accomplished 20/12.5 or better in iLASIK compared to 4 (3%) for flap-on and 7 (6%) for flap-off ASA group. Only the flap-off treatment showed a consistent correlation between the corrected aberrations and visual performance.

CONCLUSION

At 3 months, all procedures resulted in a significant increase in HOAs and SA. All had comparable 20/20 VA and 11% of iLASIK patients achieved 20/12.5 or better level.