Abstract
Purpose: :
To compare the differences in subjective and objective visual outcomes after conventional and wavefront-optimized (WFO) laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for the treatment of hyperopia.
Methods: :
In a prospective, randomized, single-center clinical trial, fifty-one consecutive eyes underwent LASIK for the treatment of hyperopia. Patients were divided evenly between groups treated with conventional Alcon LADAR4000 and wavefront-optimized Allegretto Wavelight. The refractive and visual outcomes, induced spherical aberrations, and contrast sensitivity were analyzed.
Results: :
Postoperative day one, 20% of eyes treated with a conventional profile had UCDVA of 20/20 vision or better compared to 65% of eyes receiving WFO treatment (p=0.0011). By six months, UCDVA was 20/20 or better in 72% and 84% of the conventional and WFO groups respectively (p=0.31). Six month mean MRSE was -0.21 ± 0.47D and -0.16 ± 0.27D for the conventional and WFO groups respectively (p=0.65). Induced spherical aberration was -0.54 ± 0.32µ and -0.42 ± 0.21µ for the conventional and WFO groups respectively (p=0.1195). The respective change in mesopic and photopic area under the log contrast sensitivity function was -0.05 ± 0.29 and -0.05 ± 0.23 for the conventional group and 0.08 ± 0.39 and 0.08 ± 0.41 for WFO (p=0.1970). No patients lost more than one line of BCVA.
Conclusions: :
Both WFO and conventional ablation profiles predictably and safely correct low to moderate hyperopia. WFO showed superior results with regards to rapid visual recovery.
Keywords: refractive surgery: LASIK • hyperopia • refractive surgery: comparative studies