May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Prospective, randomised, double–masked pilot study of conventional versus wavefront–guided LASIK: Visual and refractive outcomes
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • D.F. Anderson
    Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • C.M. Chisholm
    Optometry, City University, London, United Kingdom
  • A. Khan
    Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • J. Kvansakul
    Optometry, City University, London, United Kingdom
  • J.L. Barbur
    Optometry, City University, London, United Kingdom
  • D.S. Gartry
    Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  D.F. Anderson, None; C.M. Chisholm, None; A. Khan, None; J. Kvansakul, None; J.L. Barbur, None; D.S. Gartry, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 1101. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      D.F. Anderson, C.M. Chisholm, A. Khan, J. Kvansakul, J.L. Barbur, D.S. Gartry; Prospective, randomised, double–masked pilot study of conventional versus wavefront–guided LASIK: Visual and refractive outcomes . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):1101.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To determine the difference in visual acuity, refractive outcomes and wavefront error between patients undergoing conventional (Group 1) or wavefront–guided (WG)(Group 2) LASIK for myopic astigmatism. Methods: Twenty four eyes of twelve patients were randomised to receive either conventional (preoperative MRSE –4.86 ± 0.29D)(mean ± SEM) or WG LASIK (preoperative MRSE –5.08 ± 0.23D) using the VisX Star S4 laser employing v3.1 software. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmic examination with measurement of Snellen and logMAR acuity, Pelli–Robson score (PR), manifest refraction and corneal topography (Orbscan, Bausch and Lomb). A Shack–Hartmann aberrometer (Wavescan, VisX) was used to determine the wavefront error. Following treatment, patients were examined at 1, 3 and 12 months. Results: There was no statistical difference in preoperative characteristics between the groups. At three months post–operatively all eyes achieved an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better with no loss of lines of best–corrected acuity or significant difference in logMAR or PR scores. The MRSE for Group 1 (–0.28 ± 0.06D) was, however, significantly lower than for Group 2 (–0.55 ± 0.10D)(p<0.5). At three months follow up, total RMS error (0.328 ± 0.03µm group 1 vs. 0.308 ± 0.03µm group 2), vertical and horizontal coma, trephoil 30o and spherical aberration was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: In this pilot study, wavefront–guided LASIKoffered no significant advantage in visual performance over LASIKemploying a standard treatment algorithm but did result in a significantly higher MRSE at 3 month follow up.

Keywords: laser • refractive surgery: comparative studies • refractive surgery: LASIK 
×
×

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.

×