Visual outcome and contrast sensitivity after photorefractive keratectomy in low to moderate myopia: Wavefront-optimized versus conventional methods

Nassiri, Nader; Safi, Sare; Amiri, Mohammad Aghazade; Sheibani, Kourosh; Safi, Hamid; Panahi, Nekoo; Nassiri, Nariman

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.023

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both treatments demonstrated good efficacy, safety, and predictability profiles while the patients were monitored during the first postoperative year. This outcome is in line with previous studies that have shown the safety and efficacy of WFG 18,28 and WFO 29,30 PRK without a direct comparison of the procedures. There was a higher proportion (62.0%) of eyes undergoing WFG treatment that achieved a UCVA of 20/12.5 compared with those in the WFO group (54.9%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Karimian et al 1 showed that HOA values increased after both conventional and WFG PRK, with a greater increase induced in eyes undergoing WFG because of a small ablation zone. Nassiri et al 30 compared contrast sensitivity after conventional and WFO PRK and showed that both decreased sensitivity at 3 months, but there was better preservation at lower spatial frequencies in the WFO group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contralateral Eye-to-Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized Photorefractive Keratectomy

Manche

2015

JAMA Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Wavefront-guided (WFG) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) platforms for refractive surgery are designed for improved visual outcomes. It is unclear which treatment profile is superior for patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). OBJECTIVE To compare the safety, efficacy, predictability, stability, and higher-order aberrations in eyes undergoing WFG and WFO PRK. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A prospective, randomized, fellow-eye-controlled clinical trial was conducted at the Byers Eye Institute at Stanford with enrollment between April 2009 and March 2011; 1 year of follow-up was included. Of 90 patients screened, 71 patients (142 eyes) with less than 12.00 diopters (D) of spherical myopia and less than 3.00 D of astigmatism were enrolled consecutively. INTERVENTIONS One eye was randomized to undergo WFG PRK treatment (Visx CustomVue Star S4 IR excimer laser system; Abbott Medical Optics), and the fellow eye received WFO PRK treatment (WaveLight Allegretto Wave Eye-Q 400 Hz excimer laser system; Alcon Surgical). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Data on the manifest refraction, uncorrected visual acuity, best-corrected visual acuity, 5% and 25% contrast best-corrected visual acuity, and higher-order aberrations were collected preoperatively and at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up visits. RESULTS Eyes undergoing both treatments had improved best-corrected visual acuity

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contralateral Eye-to-Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized Photorefractive Keratectomy

Manche

2015

JAMA Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The visual outcomes in our study was similar to other studies where wavefront optimized platform of WaveLight Allegretto system was used. [1213] Thanathanee et al [14] also showed that there was no difference in UDVA when either dexamethasone or loteprednol etabonate was used after PRK.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of loteprednol with fluorometholone after myopic photorefractive keratectomy

Karimian

Faramarzi

Fekri

et al. 2017

J Ophthalmic Vis Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To compare the efficacy and side effects of loteprednol versus fluorometholone after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).Methods:One hundred and twenty four eyes of 62 patients who underwent PRK were enrolled in this study. One eye of each subject was randomized to receive loteprednol 0.5% and the fellow eye was given fluorometholone 0.1%. Patients were followed up for three months.Results:There was no significant difference in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, corneal haze, intraocular pressure (IOP), and ocular discomfort and redness between groups at the final visit. At 3 months postoperatively, 20/25 or better UDVA was achieved in 95% of the loteprednol group and 92% of the fluorometholone group (P > 0.05). There was neither visually significant corneal haze nor ocular hypertension (IOP rise > 10 mmHg or IOP > 21 mmHg) in any group.Conclusion:The efficacy and side effects of loteprednol 0.5% and fluorometholone 0.1% after myopic PRK are comparable.

show abstract

“…Of 10 publications, [23]–[32] which were initially considered potentially relevant, five were excluded because they did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria (Figure 1). [24], [26], [27], [29], [31] The other five prospective RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. [23], [25], [28], [30], [32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wavefront-Guided versus Non-Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, and induced higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).MethodsThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMED, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials. Trials meeting the selection criteria were quality appraised, and data was extracted by 2 independent authors. Measures of association were pooled quantitatively using meta-analytical methods. Comparisons between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations were made as pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences. The pooled ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for efficacy, safety, and predictability. The weighted mean differences and 95% CIs were used to compare induced HOAs.ResultsThe study covered five trials involving 298 eyes. After wavefront-guided PRK, the pooled OR of achieving an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 (efficacy) was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.53–2.60; p = 0.69), the pooled OR of achieving a result within ±0.50 diopter of the intended target (predictability) was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.40–1.84; p = 0.70). No study reported a loss of 2 or more lines of Snellen acuity (safety) with either modality. In eyes with wavefront-guided PRK, the postoperative trefoil aberrations (mean difference −0.02; 95% CI, −0.03 to −0.00; p = 0.03) were significantly lower. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the postoperative total HOAs (mean difference −0.04; 95% CI, −0.23 to 0.14; p = 0.63), spherical (mean difference 0.00; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.09; p = 0.93), and coma (mean difference −0.06; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.03; p = 0.20) aberrations.ConclusionsAccording to the meta-analysis, wavefront-guided PRK offered no advantage in efficacy, predictability, or safety measures over non-wavefront-guided PRK, although it may have induced fewer trefoil aberrations.

show abstract

Visual outcome and contrast sensitivity after photorefractive keratectomy in low to moderate myopia: Wavefront-optimized versus conventional methods

Abstract: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Contralateral Eye-to-Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized Photorefractive Keratectomy

Contralateral Eye-to-Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized Photorefractive Keratectomy

Comparison of loteprednol with fluorometholone after myopic photorefractive keratectomy

Wavefront-Guided versus Non-Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About