June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Factors affecting eye preference in a prospective randomized controlled fellow eye study comparing WFG-LASIK and WFO-LASIK treatment
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Bryce Chiang
    Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States
  • Edward E Manche
    Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Bryce Chiang Roche/Genentech, Code E (Employment); Edward Manche vedro, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Code C (Consultant/Contractor), Allergan, Alcon, Avedro, , Carl Zeiss Meditec, and Johnson & Johnson Vision, Novarits, Code F (Financial Support), RxSight, Placid0, VacuSite, Code I (Personal Financial Interest), Vacusite, Code P (Patent)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 4362 – A0299. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Bryce Chiang, Edward E Manche; Factors affecting eye preference in a prospective randomized controlled fellow eye study comparing WFG-LASIK and WFO-LASIK treatment. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):4362 – A0299.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To better understand the visual experience and ocular symptoms that influence eye preference in individuals that received wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK and wavefront-optimized (WFO) LASIK treatments in a fellow eye controlled randomized study.

Methods : A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial (NCT02565537) was conducted where 102 myopic individuals were randomly assigned to receive WFO-LASIK in one eye and WFG-LASIK in the contralateral eye. At the pre-operative visit and subsequent post-operative visits, individuals were asked to identify eye preference. The survey responses of individuals who preferred WFG-LASIK were compared with those who did not preferred WFG-LASIK. The same was done for responses to WFO-LASIK treatments.

Results : At POM#12, 45% of subjects did not have an eye preference, 33% preferred WFO-LASIK treated eye, and 22% preferred WFG-LASIK treated eye (p=0.2). For individuals who did not prefer the WFG-LASIK eye, they noted significantly worse “hazy vision” and “blurry vision” compared with those who preferred the WFG-LASIK treatment (p<0.05). No differences in visual experience or ocular symptoms were reported by individuals who did prefer or did not prefer WFO-LASIK treatment.

Conclusions : At 12 months post WFG-LASIK treatment in one eye and WFO-LASIK treatment in the contralateral eye, most individuals did not have eye preference. Individuals who did not prefer WFG-LASIK noted hazy and blurry vision compared with individuals who preferred the WFG-LASIK treatment.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

 

Graph of individual preference for eye treated with WFG-LASIK vs WFO-LASIK at pre-op visit, POM1, POM3, POM6, POM12.

Graph of individual preference for eye treated with WFG-LASIK vs WFO-LASIK at pre-op visit, POM1, POM3, POM6, POM12.

 

Survey response to how bothersome specific symptoms were based on standardized questionnaire delineated by eye treated with WFG-LASIK (A) and WFO (B). Mean responses for subjects who preferred the treatment over contralateral eye (up arrow) and responses for subjects who did not prefer the treatment (down arrow). Data presented as mean ± 95% CI. * indicates statistically significant difference at p<0.05 level.

Survey response to how bothersome specific symptoms were based on standardized questionnaire delineated by eye treated with WFG-LASIK (A) and WFO (B). Mean responses for subjects who preferred the treatment over contralateral eye (up arrow) and responses for subjects who did not prefer the treatment (down arrow). Data presented as mean ± 95% CI. * indicates statistically significant difference at p<0.05 level.

×
×

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.

×