ABSTRACT
Purpose To compare visual outcomes and satisfaction among patients of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK; Wavelight EX 500, Alcon, Ft Worth, TX, USA) and femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FAL; Wavelight FS 200 laser and Wavelight EX 500, Alcon, Ft Worth, TX, USA). Methods We performed a retrospective study of 409 eyes in 207 patients that underwent either PRK (n=90) or FAL (n=117) at the two centers of Hashmanis Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. The included refractive outcomes were sphere diopters (D), cylinder D, and spherical equivalent D. Additionally, visual acuities were included. All of these were assessed preoperatively and at the one-month postoperative check-up. Patient satisfaction was gauged at the time of chart review by contacting the patient. Results When looking at the postoperative outcomes, we found all values to be statistically significant (p<0.001) with superior outcomes in the FAL cohort. Additionally, 90% and 15% of eyes achieved a postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 in FAL and PRK, respectively. Furthermore, the efficacy indexes of the FAL and PRK arms were 1.00 and 0.82, respectively. The predictability of the procedures were 92.1% and 64.9%, respectively. Lastly, 93.3% of patients were satisfied with FAL and 95.7% with PRK. Conclusion Our study shows superior visual outcomes in patients undergoing FAL. However, we found a higher satisfaction rate in those that underwent PRK, perhaps due to the higher cost of FAL.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare refractive outcomes, visual acuities, and satisfaction of patients between those treated with laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) using a Hansatome microkeratome (HM) and femto-assisted laser (FAL). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 1,366 eyes in 687 patients who underwent LASIK with an HM (n=1,137) and an FAL (n=229) at the two centers of Hashmanis Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. Refractive outcomes, including sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent in diopters (D), and visual acuities were assessed both preoperatively and at 1 month follow-up. Patient satisfaction was gauged by contacting the patient at the time of chart review. RESULTS: The postoperative median sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent values for those treated with FAL were 0.3±0.7 (-5.5-1.8), -0.5±0.6 (-5.0-1.0), and 0.0±0.7 (-6.0-1.6), respectively. For the HM arm, they were 0.0±1.28 (-10.8-6.8), -0.5±0.5 (-4.5-1.5), and -0.3±1.3 (-11.6-6.8), respectively. All preoperative values were statistically insignificant between the groups, while postoperative values were significant with P-values <0.001. Predictability and efficacy index was higher for the FAL (92.1%, 1.00) than the HM group (82.2%, 0.84). Similarly, patient satisfaction was slightly higher for those treated with FAL (93.3%) than HM (91.4%). CONCLUSION: Our large retrospective analysis of eyes that have undergone LASIK using HM and FAL shows superior refractive outcomes in the latter, with special regard to procedural efficacy and predictability.
