June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Photorefractive keratectomy for residual refractive error in pseudophakic patients
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Lisa Chen
    Byers Eye Institute at Stanford, Palo Alto, CA
  • Edward E Manche
    Byers Eye Institute at Stanford, Palo Alto, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Lisa Chen, None; Edward Manche, Best Doctors (C), Calhoun Vision, Inc. (I), Krypton Vision Inc. (I), Oculeve Inc. (C), Refresh Innovations, Inc. (I), Seros Medical, LLC (I), Veralas, Inc. (I)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 3930. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Lisa Chen, Edward E Manche; Photorefractive keratectomy for residual refractive error in pseudophakic patients. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):3930.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for residual refractive error in pseudophakic eyes.

Methods: In this retrospective case series, nine eyes of eight pseudophakic patients underwent wavefront-guided PRK surgery for residual refractive error. Safety, efficacy, and wavefront outcomes were evaluated.

Results: This is an ongoing study. Results for the eight eyes with at least three months of follow-up are presented below. These data will be updated prior to the meeting.<br /> <br /> Three months after PRK, 75% (n=6) of eyes had an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/40 or better and 25% (n=2) had an UDVA of 20/25 or better. All eyes achieved an UDVA of 20/60 or better. Three eyes gained one or more lines of best-corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). No eyes lost any lines of CDVA. 87.5% (n=7) of eyes were within +/-1.00 diopter (D) of emmetropia, and 87.5% (n=7) of eyes were within +/-1.00 D cylinder. The average spherical equivalent went from -0.781 (range -2.5 to +0.625, standard deviation (SD) 1.045) preoperatively to -0.47 (-0.75 to -0.13, SD 0.25) postoperatively. There was a similar decrease in average cylinder from 1.56 (0.25-3.75, SD 1.14) preoperatively to 0.69 (0-1.75, SD 0.5) postoperatively. Wavefront analyses revealed an overall reduction in total higher-order aberrations from a mean preoperative RMS error of 0.37 (0.11-0.73, SD 0.17) to 0.26 (0.08-0.59, SD 0.16) postoperatively. Average coma, trefoil, and spherical aberration were also reduced from preoperative values of 0.19 (0.05-0.42, SD 0.13), 0.21 (0.02-0.47, SD 0.15), and 0.06 (-0.16 to 0.22, SD 0.11) to postoperative values of 0.14 (0.02-0.52, SD 0.16), 0.11 (0.03-0.24, SD 0.08), 0.01 (-0.11 to 0.17, SD 0.09), respectively. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. No eyes developed corneal haze postoperatively.

Conclusions: Wavefront-guided PRK was safe and effective in the treatment of residual refractive error in pseudophakic eyes.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.