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

Efficacy and safety of small-incision corneal intrastromal lenticule implantation for hyperopia correction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To assess the efficacy and safety of intrastromal lenticule implantation for the treatment of hyperopia.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wan Fang Database identified studies on small-incision intrastromal lenticule implantation for hyperopia correction until January 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of the retrospective research, and the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess the quality of the prospective research. This study included postoperative visual outcomes, corneal morphology, and biomechanical outcomes.

Results

A total of 456 articles were identified, of which 10 were included in the meta-analysis. Ten single-arm studies involving 190 eyes were included. A meta-analysis demonstrated that corneal intrastromal lenticule implantation treatment significantly improved hyperopia. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) significantly improved compared to the preoperative value (p = 0.027), corrected distance visual acuity showed no difference compared to the preoperative value (p = 0.27), and 87% eyes have no loss of one or more lines in the Snellen lines of CDVA (p < 0.00001). There was a significant difference between the spherical equivalent refractive (SE) and preoperative examination (p < 0.00001), 52% of eyes had ±0.5 diopters (D) postoperative SE (p < 0.00001), and 74% eyes had ±1.0 D postoperative SE (p < 0.00001). The central corneal thickness (CCT) increased by 72.68 μm compared to that preoperatively (p < 0.00001), and corneal curvature increased by 4.18D (p < 0.00001). The Q-value decreased by 0.82 (p < 0.00001), and higher-order aberration (HOA) decreased by 0.66 (p < 0.00001).

Conclusion

Small-incision intrastromal lenticule implantation may be an effective solution for correcting hyperopia. The effect of improved vision is significant, but further exploration is needed for changes in corneal biomechanics and long-term safety.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42023432343.

Effect of the Optical Zone Ablation Diameter on Higher Order Aberrations After Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To study the effect of the optical zone diameter of ablation on higher order aberrations after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy for myopia and myopic astigmatism.

METHODS

In this historical cohort study in 2019, patients were grouped into 7-mm (Gr-1) and 6.5-mm optical zones of ablation (Gr-2). Topographic and higher order aberrations at analysis diameters of 2, 4, and 6 mm were measured before and six months after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy. The changes in the five types of higher order aberrations in the 6.5 mm and 7 mm groups were compared. The pupillary diameter was correlated with the change in the higher order aberrations.

RESULTS

We had 24 eyes of 12 patients in Gr-1 and 80 eyes of 40 patients in Gr-2. The trefoil type of higher order aberrations at 6 mm was significantly more prevalent in Gr-2 than in Gr-1 before surgery (p = 0.038). The change in spherical aberration six months after surgery compared with before was significantly more at 6 mm in the eyes of Gr-2 patients (p = 0.02). For the eyes managed by the 7-mm optical zone of ablation for transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy, the decline in the different types of higher order aberrations was significant. The pupillary diameter was positively correlated with the change in the third-order coma in Gr-2 (Spearman coefficient, p = 0.005). All the eyes had an uncorrected visual acuity of 0.0 LogMAR in Gr-1 and 95% in Gr-2 after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher order aberrations six months after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy were similar in eyes managed with 7-mm and 6.5-mm optical zone for ablation. But a lower aberration coefficient in eyes was managed by the 7-mm zone than the 6.5-mm zone of optical ablation at 6-mm analysis diameter.

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.

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.

Clinical application of accommodating intraocular lens

The present review describes recent advances in application of accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOLs). Standard monofocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) only correct distance vision, while AIOLs are designed to allow both good distance vision and near vision, which is achieved through the contraction and relaxation of ciliary muscles by providing transformation of the axial movement or curvature of the lens. Thus, AIOLs may be a better choice for those patients who demand a higher level of visual performance. Since techniques to analyze the performance of AIOLs have not been standardized, and there is a variety of both subjective and objective methods, it is hard to measure the performance of these intraocular lenses. By evaluating advantages and disadvantages of various AIOLs, and introducing techniques for measurement the performance postoperative, this paper can provide some relative information on choosing the type of AIOLs in the clinic.

[Evaluation of vision quality after laser vision correction in healthcare professionals]

PURPOSE

Healthcare professionals require good quality of vision. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the satisfaction and vision quality after laser vision correction in healthcare professionals.

METHODS

This is a monocentric retrospective study. An online 25-question survey was sent to ametropic physicians, surgeons and nurses who underwent corneal refractive surgery with laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) between July 2012 and February 2016. Questionnaire responses were recorded anonymously by the internet survey site. These patients' pre- and postoperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 2491 laser vision corrections were performed during this time frame. One hundred and fifty-eight patients were healthcare providers; 131 received the survey, and 111 responded. Ninety-nine were surgeons, 60 were medical physicians, and 32 were nurses. Ninety-one percent reported that they were satisfied with their postoperative vision quality, 63.9% even reported an improvement in their quality of vision compared with their corrected preoperative vision, 92.8% reported that they would have the procedure again, and 94.6% would recommend the procedure to a family member or a patient. Visual outcomes showed high levels of efficacy and predictability.

CONCLUSION

While healthcare professionals require good quality of vision, those who had undergone laser vision correction reported the same satisfaction as the general population and would recommend the procedure to their family, friends and patients.