Purchase this article with an account.
Lamarr Peppers, Sr., Rose K. Sia, Michael J. Mines, Denise S. Ryan, David Cute, Richard D. Stutzman, Kraig S. Bower; Visual Performance Comparison of Wavefront-optimized and Wavefront-guided Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK). Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):1473.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare visual acuity and contrast sensitivity results after wavefront-guided (WFG) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) PRK.
A prospective study randomizing participants to undergo visual acuity and contrast sensitivity testing before and after either WFG or WFO PRK. WFG surgeries were performed using the VISX Star S4 (Abbot Medical Optics) and WFO surgeries were performed on the Wavelight Allegretto Wave Eye-Q (Alcon Surgical). The Amoils brush (Innovative Excimer Solutions) was used for epithelial debridement. All contrast and visual acuity testing was performed monocularly using best corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) preoperatively and with best CDVA at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Night vision testing was conducted with a back-illuminated chart (25% Contrast Acuity) and green night vision filter. High and low contrast acuity testing was performed using the Variable Contrast 4 meter Rabin Super Vision Test. A repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was used to compare WFO vs. WFG PRK over time and a p-value <0.05 was considered significant.
PRK was performed on 28 WFG and 26 WFO participants. There were no significant differences in preoperative age or ablation depth (AD): Age: 30.3 ±7.1 years (y) WFG vs. 29.9 ±5.6y WFO, p=0.75; AD: 57.4±25.5microns (µ) WFG vs. 51.7±23.5µ WFO, p=0.23.
Night vision contrast performance was comparable between WFO and WFG PRK. However, WFG PRK appears to be superior to WFO PRK when comparing high and low contrast acuity over time.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only