A prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVue™ STAR S4 IR™ in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK): analysis of visual outcomes and higher order aberrations

Majid Moshirfar1, Brent S Betts2, Daniel S Churgin3, Maylon Hsu1, Marcus Neuffer1, Shameema Sikder4, Dane Church5, Mark D Mifflin11John A Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moshirfar M, Betts BS, Churgin DS, Hsu M, Neuffer M, Sikder S, Church D, Mifflin MD
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/a9eabbbb898c43869919abf9637881fc
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:Majid Moshirfar1, Brent S Betts2, Daniel S Churgin3, Maylon Hsu1, Marcus Neuffer1, Shameema Sikder4, Dane Church5, Mark D Mifflin11John A Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3University of Arizona College of Medicine – Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 4Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; 5Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USAPurpose: To compare outcomes in visual acuity, refractive error, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), contrast sensitivity, and dry eye in patients undergoing laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) using wavefront (WF) guided VISX CustomVue and WF optimized WaveLight Allegretto platforms.Methods: In this randomized, prospective, single-masked, fellow eye study, LASIK was performed on 44 eyes (22 patients), with one eye randomized to WaveLight Allegretto, and the fellow eye receiving VISX CustomVue. Postoperative outcome measures at 3 months included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refractive error, root-mean-square (RMS) value of total and grouped HOAs, contrast sensitivity, and Schirmers testing.Results: Mean values for UDVA (logMAR) were -0.067 ± 0.087 and -0.073 ± 0.092 in the WF optimized and WF guided groups, respectively (P = 0.909). UDVA of 20/20 or better was achieved in 91% of eyes undergoing LASIK with both lasers while UDVA of 20/15 or better was achieved in 64% of eyes using the Allegretto platform, and 59% of eyes using VISX CustomVue (P = 1.000). In the WF optimized group, total HOA increased 4% (P = 0.012), coma increased 11% (P = 0.065), and spherical aberration increased 19% (P = 0.214), while trefoil decreased 5% (P = 0.490). In the WF guided group, total HOA RMS decreased 9% (P = 0.126), coma decreased 18% (P = 0.144), spherical aberration decreased 27% (P = 0.713) and trefoil decreased 19% (P = 0.660). One patient lost one line of CDVA secondary to residual irregular astigmatism.Conclusion: Both the WaveLight Allegretto and the VISX CustomVue platforms had equal visual and safety outcomes. Most wavefront optimized HOA values trended upward, with a statistically significant increase in total HOA RMS. Eyes treated with the WF guided platform showed a decreasing trend in HOA values.Keywords: wavefront guided, wavefront optimized, laser in situ keratomileusis, LASIK, Allegretto, VISX