Comparing Conventional and Wavefront-optimized LASIK for the Treatment of Hyperopia
- 1 May 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SLACK, Inc. in Journal of Refractive Surgery
- Vol. 26 (5), 356-363
- https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20090617-07
Abstract
To compare differences in visual outcomes and induced spherical aberration after conventional and wavefront-optimized LASIK for the treatment of hyperopia. In a prospective, randomized, single-center clinical trial, 51 consecutive eyes underwent LASIK for the treatment of hyperopia. Eyes were divided between groups treated with conventional LASIK with the Alcon LADAR4000 excimer laser (n=25) and wavefront-optimized LASIK with the WaveLight ALLEGRETTO excimer laser (n=26). Refractive and visual outcomes, induced spherical aberrations, and contrast sensitivity were analyzed. On postoperative day 1, 20% of eyes treated with a conventional profile had uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better compared to 65% of eyes receiving wavefront-optimized treatment (P=.0011). By 6 months, UCVA was 20/20 or better in 72% and 84% of the conventional and wavefront-optimized treatment groups, respectively (P=.3254). At 6 months, the manifest refraction spherical equivalent was -0.21+/-0.47 diopters (D) and 0.16+/-0.27 D (P=.6469) whereas the cylinder was -0.41+/-0.47 D and -0.17+/-0.27 D (P=.0332) for the conventional and wavefront-optimized treatment groups, respectively. Induced spherical aberration was -0.54+/-0.32 microm and -0.42+/-0.21 microm for the conventional and wavefront-optimized treatment groups, respectively (P=.1195). The respective change in mesopic and photopic area under the log contrast sensitivity function was -0.05+/-0.29 and -0.05+/-0.23 for the conventional treatment group and 0.08+/-0.39 and 0.08+/-0.41 for the wavefront-optimized treatment group (P=.1970). Wavefront-optimized (ALLEGRETTO) and conventional (LADAR4000) ablation predictably and safely correct low to moderate hyperopia. Wavefront-optimized ablation showed superior results with regards to rapid visual recovery and residual cylinder. Although not statistically significant, a trend towards less induced negative spherical aberrations and improved mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity was noted with wavefront-optimized treatment.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis: Contralateral comparative studyJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2008
- Introduction to Wavefront-optimized, Wavefront-guided, and Topography-guided Customized Ablation: Fifth Year in ReviewJournal of Refractive Surgery, 2008
- Wavefront-optimized Versus Wavefront-guided LASIK for Myopic Astigmatism With the ALLEGRETTO WAVE: Three-month Results of a Prospective FDA TrialJournal of Refractive Surgery, 2008
- Retrospective comparison of 3 laser platforms to correct myopic spheres and spherocylinders using conventional and wavefront-guided treatmentsJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2007
- LASIK for Hyperopia With the WaveLight Excimer LaserJournal of Refractive Surgery, 2006
- Causes of spherical aberration induced by laser refractive surgeryJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2005
- Wavefront-optimized ablation profilesJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2004
- Contrast sensitivity after wave front–guided LASIK,Ophthalmology, 2004
- Mathematical model of corneal surface smoothing after laser refractive surgeryAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2003
- The Wound Healing Response After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis and Photorefractive KeratectomyAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2001