Refractive outcomes of an advanced aspherically optimized profile for myopia corrections by LASIK: a retrospective comparison with the standard aspherically optimized profile

Abstract

PurposeA retrospective comparison of refractive outcomes of a new, aspherically optimized profile with an enhanced energy correction feature (Triple-A) and the conventionally used aspherically optimized profile (ASA, or aberration smart ablation) for correction of low-to-high myopia.SettingAugen-OP-Centrum, Cologne, GermanyDesignRetrospective nonrandomized comparative studyMethodsA central database at the Augen-OP-Centrum was used to gather retrospective data for low-to-high myopia (up to −10 D). One hundred and seven eyes (56 patients) were treated with the ASA profile, and 79 eyes (46 patients) were treated with the Triple-A profile. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year follow-up time points.ResultsThe Triple-A profile showed better predictability indicated by a significantly lower standard deviation of residuals (0.32–0.34 vs 0.36–0.44, Triple-A vs ASA) in the 6-month to 1-year period. The Triple-A group had better stability across all time intervals and achieved better postoperative astigmatism improvements with significantly lower scatter. This group achieved better safety at 1 year, with 100% of eyes showing no change or gain in Snellen lines, compared with 97% in the ASA group. A better safety index was observed for the Triple-A group at later time points. The Triple-A group had a better efficacy index and a higher percentage of eyes with an uncorrected Snellen visual acuity of 20/20 or greater at all investigated follow-up time points.ConclusionThe new aspherically optimized Triple-A profile can safely and effectively correct low-to-high myopia. It has demonstrated superiority over the ASA profile in most refractive outcomes.

A pilot study: LASEK with the Triple-A profile of a MEL 90 for mild and moderate myopia

“…The enhanced energy correction in the Triple-A profile is stronger than that of ASA and TSA profiles. In two reports, this achieved better predictability compared with the ASA profile after LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) [7, 8]. In our study we demonstrated better predictability achieved with the MEL 90 and Triple-A profile than with the MEL 80 and TSA profile after LASEK.…”

Control-matched comparison of refractive and visual outcomes between small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK

“…This program was designed to maintain the prolate shape of the cornea from −3 to −6 D of sphere correction. 42 , 43 In addition, the wavefront-guided LASIK program was applied for all cases in the LASIK group; SMILE does not have such a program. If an aspheric lenticule or a wavefront-guided lenticule creation protocol was available for SMILE surgery, the difference between the SMILE and LASIK groups could potentially be larger.…”

Postoperative Corneal Asphericity in Low, Moderate, and High Myopic Eyes After Transepithelial PRK Using a New Pulse Allocation

“…Gatinel et al 14 In later studies, many groups reported findings favoring an aspherically optimized ablation profile over the conventional profiles in terms of most postoperative refractive outcomes. [17][18][19] In a large-scale study including 400 eyes (200 eyes in the wavefront-optimized group and 200 eyes in the custom-Q group), Tawfik et al 20 reported a statistically significant difference in postoperative change in Q-values (P = .02) and postoperative visual acuity (P = .42) between the two groups.…”