$Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods$
Código QR

Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods

R Doyle Stulting,1 Daniel S Durrie,2 Richard J Potvin,3 Steve H Linn,4 Ronald R Krueger,5 Mark C Lobanoff,6 Majid Moshirfar,4,7 Manoj V Motwani,8 Timothy P Lindquist,2 Karl G Stonecipher9 1Woolfson Eye Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA; 2DurrieVision, Kansas City, KS, USA; 3Science in Vision, Akron, NY, U...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Stulting RD, Durrie DS, Potvin RJ, Linn SH, Krueger RR, Lobanoff MC, Moshirfar M, Motwani MV, Lindquist TP, Stonecipher KG
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2020
Materias:	lasik topography excimer laser prk astigmatism Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/021c84b500594818814a928b48cca372
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:021c84b500594818814a928b48cca372
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:021c84b500594818814a928b48cca3722021-12-02T15:21:30ZTopography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods1177-5483https://doaj.org/article/021c84b500594818814a928b48cca3722020-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/topography-guided-refractive-astigmatism-outcomes-predictions-comparin-peer-reviewed-article-OPTHhttps://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483R Doyle Stulting,1 Daniel S Durrie,2 Richard J Potvin,3 Steve H Linn,4 Ronald R Krueger,5 Mark C Lobanoff,6 Majid Moshirfar,4,7 Manoj V Motwani,8 Timothy P Lindquist,2 Karl G Stonecipher9 1Woolfson Eye Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA; 2DurrieVision, Kansas City, KS, USA; 3Science in Vision, Akron, NY, USA; 4Hoopes, Durrie, Rivera Research, Draper, UT, USA; 5Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; 6North Suburban Eye Specialists, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 7John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 8Motwani LASIK Institute, San Diego, CA, USA; 9TLC Laser Centers, Greensboro, NC, USACorrespondence: R Doyle Stulting 224 Konawa LN, Loudon, TN 37774, USATel +1 770-804-1684Email ophtrds@emory.eduPurpose: To identify the laser programming strategy that will achieve optimal refractive outcomes of LASIK with a topography-guided laser for eyes with a disparity between cylinder measured by manifest refraction and cylinder measured by topography.Setting: Six surgeons at 5 clinical sites in the USA.Design: Retrospective data review.Methods: Preoperative, treatment, and postoperative data on 52 eyes that underwent topography-guided LASIK with the WaveLight EX500 Contoura® Vision excimer laser ablation profile in which the vectors representing the preoperative refractive cylinder and the cylinder measured by the WaveLight® Topolyzer™ VARIO Diagnostic Device (Vario cylinder) differed by >/= 0.50D and/or >/= 10 degrees of orientation were analyzed retrospectively. Data were contributed by six surgeons using the laser at 5 different clinical sites. Vector analysis of postoperative cylindrical refractive error and the actual laser programming strategy was used to calculate the cylindrical correction that would, theoretically, have completely eliminated postoperative refractive cylinder. This was compared to expected results using the preoperative manifest cylinder, the topographic cylinder, and the Phorcides Analytic Engine (Phorcides LLC, North Oaks MN; Phorcides). For analysis, subjects were stratified on the basis of the vector difference between Manifest and Topo cylinder (High, > 0.75 D; and Low, ≤ 0.75 D).Results: The poorest calculated theoretical outcomes were obtained with the manifest refraction (centroid: − 0.43, 0.22; mean calculated error vector: 0.56 ± 0.42 D; p=ns). Better outcomes were obtained with the topographically measured refraction (centroid: 0.37, 0.02; mean calculated error vector: 0.47 ± 0.33 D; p=ns). The best outcomes were obtained with Phorcides (centroid: − 0.15, 0.06; mean calculated error vector: 0.39 ± 0.28 D; p=ns). The mean error vector magnitude in the Phorcides Low group was significantly lower than for the Manifest and Topo Low groups (0.26 D vs 0.48 D and 0.33 D; p< 0.01). The mean error magnitude in the Phorcides High group was nearly 0.25 D lower than for the Manifest High group (0.48 D vs 0.70 D; p< 0.01), but was the same as for the Topo High group (0.48 D vs 0.48 D).Conclusion: Our study suggests that using the topographically measured cylinder or the cylinder selected by Phorcides will produce more desirable refractive outcomes than entry of the preoperative refractive cylinder as the basis for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism with the WaveLight Contoura Vision excimer laser.Keywords: LASIK, topography, excimer, laser, PRK, astigmatismStulting RDDurrie DSPotvin RJLinn SHKrueger RRLobanoff MCMoshirfar MMotwani MVLindquist TPStonecipher KGDove Medical Pressarticlelasik topography excimer laser prk astigmatismOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol Volume 14, Pp 1091-1100 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	lasik topography excimer laser prk astigmatism Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	lasik topography excimer laser prk astigmatism Ophthalmology RE1-994 Stulting RD Durrie DS Potvin RJ Linn SH Krueger RR Lobanoff MC Moshirfar M Motwani MV Lindquist TP Stonecipher KG Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods
description	R Doyle Stulting,1 Daniel S Durrie,2 Richard J Potvin,3 Steve H Linn,4 Ronald R Krueger,5 Mark C Lobanoff,6 Majid Moshirfar,4,7 Manoj V Motwani,8 Timothy P Lindquist,2 Karl G Stonecipher9 1Woolfson Eye Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA; 2DurrieVision, Kansas City, KS, USA; 3Science in Vision, Akron, NY, USA; 4Hoopes, Durrie, Rivera Research, Draper, UT, USA; 5Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; 6North Suburban Eye Specialists, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 7John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 8Motwani LASIK Institute, San Diego, CA, USA; 9TLC Laser Centers, Greensboro, NC, USACorrespondence: R Doyle Stulting 224 Konawa LN, Loudon, TN 37774, USATel +1 770-804-1684Email ophtrds@emory.eduPurpose: To identify the laser programming strategy that will achieve optimal refractive outcomes of LASIK with a topography-guided laser for eyes with a disparity between cylinder measured by manifest refraction and cylinder measured by topography.Setting: Six surgeons at 5 clinical sites in the USA.Design: Retrospective data review.Methods: Preoperative, treatment, and postoperative data on 52 eyes that underwent topography-guided LASIK with the WaveLight EX500 Contoura® Vision excimer laser ablation profile in which the vectors representing the preoperative refractive cylinder and the cylinder measured by the WaveLight® Topolyzer™ VARIO Diagnostic Device (Vario cylinder) differed by >/= 0.50D and/or >/= 10 degrees of orientation were analyzed retrospectively. Data were contributed by six surgeons using the laser at 5 different clinical sites. Vector analysis of postoperative cylindrical refractive error and the actual laser programming strategy was used to calculate the cylindrical correction that would, theoretically, have completely eliminated postoperative refractive cylinder. This was compared to expected results using the preoperative manifest cylinder, the topographic cylinder, and the Phorcides Analytic Engine (Phorcides LLC, North Oaks MN; Phorcides). For analysis, subjects were stratified on the basis of the vector difference between Manifest and Topo cylinder (High, > 0.75 D; and Low, ≤ 0.75 D).Results: The poorest calculated theoretical outcomes were obtained with the manifest refraction (centroid: − 0.43, 0.22; mean calculated error vector: 0.56 ± 0.42 D; p=ns). Better outcomes were obtained with the topographically measured refraction (centroid: 0.37, 0.02; mean calculated error vector: 0.47 ± 0.33 D; p=ns). The best outcomes were obtained with Phorcides (centroid: − 0.15, 0.06; mean calculated error vector: 0.39 ± 0.28 D; p=ns). The mean error vector magnitude in the Phorcides Low group was significantly lower than for the Manifest and Topo Low groups (0.26 D vs 0.48 D and 0.33 D; p< 0.01). The mean error magnitude in the Phorcides High group was nearly 0.25 D lower than for the Manifest High group (0.48 D vs 0.70 D; p< 0.01), but was the same as for the Topo High group (0.48 D vs 0.48 D).Conclusion: Our study suggests that using the topographically measured cylinder or the cylinder selected by Phorcides will produce more desirable refractive outcomes than entry of the preoperative refractive cylinder as the basis for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism with the WaveLight Contoura Vision excimer laser.Keywords: LASIK, topography, excimer, laser, PRK, astigmatism
format	article
author	Stulting RD Durrie DS Potvin RJ Linn SH Krueger RR Lobanoff MC Moshirfar M Motwani MV Lindquist TP Stonecipher KG
author_facet	Stulting RD Durrie DS Potvin RJ Linn SH Krueger RR Lobanoff MC Moshirfar M Motwani MV Lindquist TP Stonecipher KG
author_sort	Stulting RD
title	Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods
title_short	Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods
title_full	Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods
title_fullStr	Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods
title_full_unstemmed	Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods
title_sort	topography-guided refractive astigmatism outcomes: predictions comparing three different programming methods
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/021c84b500594818814a928b48cca372
work_keys_str_mv	AT stultingrd topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT durrieds topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT potvinrj topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT linnsh topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT kruegerrr topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT lobanoffmc topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT moshirfarm topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT motwanimv topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT lindquisttp topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods AT stonecipherkg topographyguidedrefractiveastigmatismoutcomespredictionscomparingthreedifferentprogrammingmethods
_version_	1718387408749199360

Topography-Guided Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes: Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods

Ejemplares similares