Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations
Majid Moshirfar1, Daniel S Churgin2, Brent S Betts3, Maylon Hsu1, Shameema Sikder4, Marcus Neuffer1, Dane Church5, Mark D Mifflin11University of Utah, John A Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoeni...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2011
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/ccdec544a8ab4af29554df8e90f3c5b9 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:ccdec544a8ab4af29554df8e90f3c5b9 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:ccdec544a8ab4af29554df8e90f3c5b92021-12-02T05:01:30ZProspective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations1177-54671177-5483https://doaj.org/article/ccdec544a8ab4af29554df8e90f3c5b92011-08-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.dovepress.com/prospective-randomized-fellow-eye-comparison-of-wavelightreg-allegrett-a8125https://doaj.org/toc/1177-5467https://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Majid Moshirfar1, Daniel S Churgin2, Brent S Betts3, Maylon Hsu1, Shameema Sikder4, Marcus Neuffer1, Dane Church5, Mark D Mifflin11University of Utah, John A Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ; 3Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; 5Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USABackground: The purpose of this study was to compare differences in visual outcomes, higher-order aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and dry eye in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy using wavefront-guided VISX CustomVue™ and wavefront-optimized WaveLight® Allegretto platforms.Methods: In this randomized, prospective, single-masked, fellow-eye study, photorefractive keratectomy was performed on 46 eyes from 23 patients, with one eye randomized to WaveLight Allegretto, and the fellow eye receiving VISX CustomVue. Three-month postoperative outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, refractive error, root mean square of total and grouped higher-order aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and Schirmer’s testing.Results: Mean values for uncorrected distance visual acuity (logMAR) were —0.03 ± 0.07 and —0.06 ± 0.09 in the wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided groups, respectively (P = 0.121). Uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better was achieved in 91% of eyes receiving wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy, and 87% of eyes receiving wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy, whereas uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/15 was achieved in 35% of the wavefront-optimized group and 64% of the wavefront-guided group (P ≥ 0.296). While root mean square of total higher-order aberration, coma, and trefoil tended to increase in the wavefront-optimized group (P = 0.091, P = 0.115, P = 0.459, respectively), only spherical aberration increased significantly (P = 0.014). Similar increases were found in wavefront-guided root mean square of total higher-order aberration (P = 0.113), coma (P = 0.403), trefoil (P = 0.603), and spherical aberration (P = 0.014). There was no significant difference in spherical aberration change when comparing the two platforms. The wavefront-guided group showed an increase in contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles per degree (P = 0.013).Conclusion: Both VISX CustomVue and WaveLight Allegretto platforms performed equally in terms of visual acuity, safety, and predictability in photorefractive keratectomy. The wavefront-guided group showed slightly improved contrast sensitivity. Both lasers induced a comparable degree of statistically significant spherical aberration, and tended to increase other higher-order aberration measures as well.Keywords: wavefront-guided, wavefront-optimized, photorefractive keratectomySikder SNeuffer MChurch DMifflin MDMoshirfar MChurgin DSBetts BSHsu MDove Medical PressarticleOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol 2011, Iss default, Pp 1185-1193 (2011) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
Ophthalmology RE1-994 |
| spellingShingle |
Ophthalmology RE1-994 Sikder S Neuffer M Church D Mifflin MD Moshirfar M Churgin DS Betts BS Hsu M Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations |
| description |
Majid Moshirfar1, Daniel S Churgin2, Brent S Betts3, Maylon Hsu1, Shameema Sikder4, Marcus Neuffer1, Dane Church5, Mark D Mifflin11University of Utah, John A Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ; 3Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; 5Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USABackground: The purpose of this study was to compare differences in visual outcomes, higher-order aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and dry eye in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy using wavefront-guided VISX CustomVue™ and wavefront-optimized WaveLight® Allegretto platforms.Methods: In this randomized, prospective, single-masked, fellow-eye study, photorefractive keratectomy was performed on 46 eyes from 23 patients, with one eye randomized to WaveLight Allegretto, and the fellow eye receiving VISX CustomVue. Three-month postoperative outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, refractive error, root mean square of total and grouped higher-order aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and Schirmer’s testing.Results: Mean values for uncorrected distance visual acuity (logMAR) were —0.03 ± 0.07 and —0.06 ± 0.09 in the wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided groups, respectively (P = 0.121). Uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better was achieved in 91% of eyes receiving wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy, and 87% of eyes receiving wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy, whereas uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/15 was achieved in 35% of the wavefront-optimized group and 64% of the wavefront-guided group (P ≥ 0.296). While root mean square of total higher-order aberration, coma, and trefoil tended to increase in the wavefront-optimized group (P = 0.091, P = 0.115, P = 0.459, respectively), only spherical aberration increased significantly (P = 0.014). Similar increases were found in wavefront-guided root mean square of total higher-order aberration (P = 0.113), coma (P = 0.403), trefoil (P = 0.603), and spherical aberration (P = 0.014). There was no significant difference in spherical aberration change when comparing the two platforms. The wavefront-guided group showed an increase in contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles per degree (P = 0.013).Conclusion: Both VISX CustomVue and WaveLight Allegretto platforms performed equally in terms of visual acuity, safety, and predictability in photorefractive keratectomy. The wavefront-guided group showed slightly improved contrast sensitivity. Both lasers induced a comparable degree of statistically significant spherical aberration, and tended to increase other higher-order aberration measures as well.Keywords: wavefront-guided, wavefront-optimized, photorefractive keratectomy |
| format |
article |
| author |
Sikder S Neuffer M Church D Mifflin MD Moshirfar M Churgin DS Betts BS Hsu M |
| author_facet |
Sikder S Neuffer M Church D Mifflin MD Moshirfar M Churgin DS Betts BS Hsu M |
| author_sort |
Sikder S |
| title |
Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations |
| title_short |
Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations |
| title_full |
Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations |
| title_fullStr |
Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations |
| title_sort |
prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of wavelight® allegretto wave® eye-q versus visx customvuetm star s4 irtm in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations |
| publisher |
Dove Medical Press |
| publishDate |
2011 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/ccdec544a8ab4af29554df8e90f3c5b9 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT sikders prospectiverandomizedfelloweyecomparisonofwavelightampregallegrettowaveampregeyeqversusvisxcustomvuetmstars4irtminphotorefractivekeratectomyanalysisofvisualoutcomesandhigherorderaberrations AT neufferm prospectiverandomizedfelloweyecomparisonofwavelightampregallegrettowaveampregeyeqversusvisxcustomvuetmstars4irtminphotorefractivekeratectomyanalysisofvisualoutcomesandhigherorderaberrations AT churchd prospectiverandomizedfelloweyecomparisonofwavelightampregallegrettowaveampregeyeqversusvisxcustomvuetmstars4irtminphotorefractivekeratectomyanalysisofvisualoutcomesandhigherorderaberrations AT mifflinmd prospectiverandomizedfelloweyecomparisonofwavelightampregallegrettowaveampregeyeqversusvisxcustomvuetmstars4irtminphotorefractivekeratectomyanalysisofvisualoutcomesandhigherorderaberrations AT moshirfarm prospectiverandomizedfelloweyecomparisonofwavelightampregallegrettowaveampregeyeqversusvisxcustomvuetmstars4irtminphotorefractivekeratectomyanalysisofvisualoutcomesandhigherorderaberrations AT churginds prospectiverandomizedfelloweyecomparisonofwavelightampregallegrettowaveampregeyeqversusvisxcustomvuetmstars4irtminphotorefractivekeratectomyanalysisofvisualoutcomesandhigherorderaberrations AT bettsbs prospectiverandomizedfelloweyecomparisonofwavelightampregallegrettowaveampregeyeqversusvisxcustomvuetmstars4irtminphotorefractivekeratectomyanalysisofvisualoutcomesandhigherorderaberrations AT hsum prospectiverandomizedfelloweyecomparisonofwavelightampregallegrettowaveampregeyeqversusvisxcustomvuetmstars4irtminphotorefractivekeratectomyanalysisofvisualoutcomesandhigherorderaberrations |
| _version_ |
1718400854262808576 |