2020Clinical ophthalmologyOpen access

A Prospective Comparison of Wavefront-Guided LASIK versus Wavefront-Guided PRK After Previous Keratorefractive Surgery

Michele Lee, Lisa Chen, Elaine Tran, Edward E. Manche

Open full text 11 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the results of retreatment with wavefront-guided LASIK versus wavefront-guided PRK for residual refractive error following previous myopic keratorefractive surgery. METHODS: In this prospective study, 32 eyes of 28 patients after prior myopic keratorefractive surgery underwent retreatment with flap-lift wavefront-guided LASIK (n = 12) or wavefront-guided PRK (n = 20) for residual refractive error. Safety, efficacy, predictability, and wavefront outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: At last follow-up, both LASIK and PRK retreatment resulted in similar improvement in visual acuity with respective mean ± standard deviation (SD) uncorrected distance visual acuity of -0.07 ± 0.11 logMAR and -0.06 ± 0.13 logMAR (p = 0.87). In the study, 16.7% of LASIK and 33.3% of PRK eyes gained one or more lines of best-corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), while 16.7% and 9.5% of eyes lost one or more lines of CDVA with LASIK and PRK, respectively. One hundred % of LASIK eyes and 89.5% of PRK eyes were within ± 0.50 diopters of emmetropia. Wavefront analysis demonstrated similar reductions in total RMS error higher-order aberrations (p = 0.84) with no difference in coma, trefoil, or spherical aberration between eyes undergoing LASIK or PRK retreatment. CONCLUSION: Wavefront-guided LASIK and wavefront-guided PRK following previous keratorefractive surgery demonstrate similar safety, efficacy, and predictability with comparable wavefront outcomes.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To compare the results of retreatment with wavefront-guided LASIK versus wavefront-guided PRK for residual refractive error following previous myopic keratorefractive surgery. METHODS: In this prospective study, 32 eyes of 28 patients after prior myopic keratorefractive surgery underwent retreatment with flap-lift wavefront-guided LASIK (n = 12) or wavefront-guided PRK (n = 20) for residual refractive error. Safety, efficacy, predictability, and wavefront outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: At last follow-up, both LASIK and PRK retreatment resulted in similar improvement in visual acuity with respective mean ± standard deviation (SD) uncorrected distance visual acuity of -0.07 ± 0.11 logMAR and -0.06 ± 0.13 logMAR (p = 0.87). In the study, 16.7% of LASIK and 33.3% of PRK eyes gained one or more lines of best-corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), while 16.7% and 9.5% of eyes lost one or more lines of CDVA with LASIK and PRK, respectively. One hundred % of LASIK eyes and 89.5% of PRK eyes were within ± 0.50 diopters of emmetropia. Wavefront analysis demonstrated similar reductions in total RMS error higher-order aberrations (p = 0.84) with no difference in coma, trefoil, or spherical aberration between eyes undergoing LASIK or PRK retreatment. CONCLUSION: Wavefront-guided LASIK and wavefront-guided PRK following previous keratorefractive surgery demonstrate similar safety, efficacy, and predictability with comparable wavefront outcomes.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 11 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the results of retreatment with wavefront-guided LASIK versus wavefront-guided PRK for residual refractive error following previous myopic keratorefractive surgery. METHODS: In this prospective study, 32 eyes of 28 patients after prior myopic keratorefractive surgery underwent retreatment with flap-lift wavefront-guided LASIK (n = 12) or wavefront-guided PRK (n = 20) for residual refractive error. Safety, efficacy, predictability, and wavefront outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: At last follow-up, both LASIK and PRK retreatment resulted in similar improvement in visual acuity with respective mean ± standard deviation (SD) uncorrected distance visual acuity of -0.07 ± 0.11 logMAR and -0.06 ± 0.13 logMAR (p = 0.87). In the study, 16.7% of LASIK and 33.3% of PRK eyes gained one or more lines of best-corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), while 16.7% and 9.5% of eyes lost one or more lines of CDVA with LASIK and PRK, respectively. One hundred % of LASIK eyes and 89.5% of PRK eyes were within ± 0.50 diopters of emmetropia. Wavefront analysis demonstrated similar reductions in total RMS error higher-order aberrations (p = 0.84) with no difference in coma, trefoil, or spherical aberration between eyes undergoing LASIK or PRK retreatment. CONCLUSION: Wavefront-guided LASIK and wavefront-guided PRK following previous keratorefractive surgery demonstrate similar safety, efficacy, and predictability with comparable wavefront outcomes.

Key concepts: LASIK, Medicine, Emmetropia, Ophthalmology, Aberrations of the eye, Keratomileusis, Coma (optics), Photorefractive keratectomy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Prospective Comparison of Wavefront-Guided LASIK versus Wavefront-Guided PRK After Previous Keratorefractive Surgery — Research Paper | ScholarLens