Comparison and analysis of FDA reported visual outcomes of the three latest platforms for LASIK: wavefront guided Visx iDesign, topography guided WaveLight Allegro Contoura, and topography guided Nidek EC-5000 CATz
Majid Moshirfar,1,2 Tirth J Shah,3 David Franklin Skanchy,4 Steven H Linn,1 Paul Kang,3 Daniel S Durrie5 1HDR Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Salt Lake City, UT, 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, 3Un...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d3774428a5664d8f886d099f7eab720a |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Majid Moshirfar,1,2 Tirth J Shah,3 David Franklin Skanchy,4 Steven H Linn,1 Paul Kang,3 Daniel S Durrie5 1HDR Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Salt Lake City, UT, 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, 3University of Arizona College of Medicine – Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, 4McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, TX, 5Durrie Vision, Kansas City, KS, USA Purpose: To compare and analyze the differences in visual outcomes between Visx iDesign Advanced WaveScan Studio™ System, Alcon Wavelight Allegro Topolyzer and Nidek EC-5000 using Final Fit™ Custom Ablation Treatment Software from the submitted summary of safety and effectiveness of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.Methods: In this retrospective comparative study, 334 eyes from Visx iDesign, 212 eyes from Alcon Contour, and 135 eyes from Nidek CATz platforms were analyzed for primary and secondary visual outcomes. These outcomes were compared via side-by-side graphical and tabular representation of the FDA data. Statistical significance was calculated when appropriate to assess differences. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 12 months was 20/19.25±8.76, 20/16.59±5.94, and 20/19.17±4.46 for Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. In at least 90% of treated eyes at 3 months and 12 months, all three lasers showed either no change or a gain of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). Mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 months showed a clinically significant increase of 41.3%, 25.1%, and 10.6% for eyes using Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. Photopic contrast sensitivity at 6 months showed a clinically significant increase of 19.2%, 31.9%, and 10.6% for eyes using Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. Conclusion: FDA data for the three platforms shows all three were excellent with respect to efficacy, safety, accuracy, and stability. However, there are some differences between the platforms with certain outcome measurements. Overall, patients using all three lasers showed significant improvements in primary and secondary visual outcomes after LASIK surgery. Keywords: wavefront-guided, topography-guided, LASIK, wavefront optimized |
|---|