skip to content
Dovepress - Open Access to Scientific and Medical Research
View our mobile site

15370

Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations



Original Research

(8848) Total Article Views


Authors: Moshirfar M, Churgin DS, Betts BS, Hsu M, Sikder S, Neuffer M, Church D, Mifflin MD

Published Date August 2011 Volume 2011:5 Pages 1185 - 1193
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S24319

Majid Moshirfar1, Daniel S Churgin2, Brent S Betts3, Maylon Hsu1, Shameema Sikder4, Marcus Neuffer1, Dane Church5, Mark D Mifflin1
1University of Utah, John A Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ; 3Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; 5Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare differences in visual outcomes, higher-order aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and dry eye in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy using wavefront-guided VISX CustomVue™ and wavefront-optimized WaveLight® Allegretto platforms.
Methods: In this randomized, prospective, single-masked, fellow-eye study, photorefractive keratectomy was performed on 46 eyes from 23 patients, with one eye randomized to WaveLight Allegretto, and the fellow eye receiving VISX CustomVue. Three-month postoperative outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, refractive error, root mean square of total and grouped higher-order aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and Schirmer’s testing.
Results: Mean values for uncorrected distance visual acuity (logMAR) were —0.03 ± 0.07 and —0.06 ± 0.09 in the wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided groups, respectively (P = 0.121). Uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better was achieved in 91% of eyes receiving wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy, and 87% of eyes receiving wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy, whereas uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/15 was achieved in 35% of the wavefront-optimized group and 64% of the wavefront-guided group (P ≥ 0.296). While root mean square of total higher-order aberration, coma, and trefoil tended to increase in the wavefront-optimized group (P = 0.091, P = 0.115, P = 0.459, respectively), only spherical aberration increased significantly (P = 0.014). Similar increases were found in wavefront-guided root mean square of total higher-order aberration (P = 0.113), coma (P = 0.403), trefoil (P = 0.603), and spherical aberration (P = 0.014). There was no significant difference in spherical aberration change when comparing the two platforms. The wavefront-guided group showed an increase in contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles per degree (P = 0.013).
Conclusion: Both VISX CustomVue and WaveLight Allegretto platforms performed equally in terms of visual acuity, safety, and predictability in photorefractive keratectomy. The wavefront-guided group showed slightly improved contrast sensitivity. Both lasers induced a comparable degree of statistically significant spherical aberration, and tended to increase other higher-order aberration measures as well.

Keywords: wavefront-guided, wavefront-optimized, photorefractive keratectomy





Post to:
Cannotea Citeulike Del.icio.us Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

 

Other articles by Dr Majid Moshirfar

A Comparison of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-myopic LASIK/PRK Intraocular Lens (IOL) calculator and the Ocular MD IOL calculator
A prospective, contralateral comparison of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus thin-flap LASIK: assessment of visual function
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
Anesthetic keratopathy presenting as bilateral Mooren-like ulcers
Bilateral total Descemet's membrane detachments after strangulation
Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models
Complications of NewColorIris implantation in phakic eyes: a review
Corrigendum: Softec HD hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens: biocompatibility and precision
Double-pass microkeratome technique for ultra-thin graft preparation in Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty
Epithelial growth over the optic surface of the type 1 Boston Keratoprosthesis: histopathology and implications for biointegration
Evaluation of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery intraocular lens calculator for eyes with prior radial keratotomy
Femtosecond-assisted preparation of donor tissue for Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis
In vivo and in vitro analysis of topographic changes secondary to DSAEK venting incisions
Incidence rate and occurrence of visually significant cataract formation and corneal decompensation after implantation of Verisyse/Artisan phakic intraocular lens
Laser in situ keratomileusis in patients with collagen vascular disease: a review of the literature
Laser in-situ keratomileusis in patients with diabetes mellitus: a review of the literature
Radial keratotomy associated endothelial degeneration
Rate of ectasia and incidence of irregular topography in patients with unidentified preoperative risk factors undergoing femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK
Softec HD hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens: biocompatibility and precision
Surgical technique: coupling of intrastromal corneal ring segments for ectatic corneal disorders in eye bank corneas
The effect of preoperative keratometry on visual outcomes after moderate myopic LASIK

Readers of this article also read: