Wavefront-guided PRK treatment of myopia using a refractive aberrometer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes of wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of myopic refractive errors with and without astigmatism. SETTING: U.S. multicenter study. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized clinical investigation. METHODS: 334 eyes (167 patients) underwent wavefront-guided PRK with the STAR S4 IR Excimer Laser System. Patients had preoperative myopic refractive errors with sphere up to -8.00 diopters (D) and cylinder up to -4.00 D with a maximum spherical equivalent (SE) of -10.00 D. All eyes were targeted for emmetropia, and treatment plans were derived from the iDESIGN system wavefront measurements. RESULTS: At 6 months, the point of refractive stability, 99.4% of eyes achieved 20/20 or better uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), 92% of eyes achieved 20/16 or better UDVA, 85.5% of eyes achieved manifest refraction SE (MRSE) within 0.50 D of target, mean SE was -0.06, and less than 1% of eyes lost more than 2 lines of corrected distance visual acuity. Glare and halos occurred with similar or lower frequencies at 6 months vs preoperative. Results from the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of life questionnaire showed statistically significant improvements at 6 months vs preoperative across most measures of vision-related functioning and well-being. Approximately 98% of patients reported high satisfaction with their overall vision at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront-guided PRK with the iDESIGN aberrometer was safe, effective, and predictable for the correction of low to moderate myopia with and without astigmatism and led to high patient satisfaction.

Quality of Vision Following LASIK and PRK-MMC for Treatment of Myopia.

INTRODUCTION: Femtosecond-assisted thin flap, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy with mitomycin-C (PRK-MMC) are the two most common refractive surgical procedures used to enhance visual capability in the U.S military. The purposes of the study were to examine effects on quality of vision following LASIK and PRK-MMC using a novel computer-based quick contrast sensitivity function (qCSF) test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective clinical study included 58 active duty U.S. military service members who elected LASIK (n = 29) or PRK-MMC (n = 29) refractive surgery for myopia (nearsightedness) treatment. Monocular photopic and mesopic quality of vision of the right eyes in spectacle correction preoperatively and unaided right eyes at four postoperative follow-up visits (1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months) were examined using the qCSF device. Two qCSF parameters, area under a log CSF (AULCSF) between 1.5 and 18 cycles per degree, and CSF cutoff acuity (CSF Acuity), were collected using a 50-trial setting at a 4-m testing distance. General linear model (GLM) Repeated-measures Analysis of Covariance was used to examine effects on quality of vision following LASIK and PRK-MMC. Post hoc testing with Bonferroni correction was used for pairwise comparisons, and preoperative cylinder refraction was used as a covariate. Two-tailed independent t-test was used to compare preoperative and postoperative parameters between LASIK and PRK-MMC. Pearson's correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and multiple linear regression were used to examine the relationship among the qCSF and other vision tests. RESULTS: Quality of vision, AULCSF, and CSF Acuity returned to the preoperative baseline at postoperative 2 weeks under mesopic condition and at postoperative 1 month under photopic condition after PRK-MMC. In comparison, photopic and mesopic quality of vision were not significantly different from the baseline at any of the four postoperative visits following LASIK. Changes of CSF Acuity from the baseline after LASIK were significantly better under photopic than mesopic condition by 0.067 ± 0.014 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR); P < .001). Quality of vision was not significantly different between the LASIK and PRK-MMC groups at postoperative 1 and 3 months. When predicting photopic AULCSF (overall model fit R2 = 0.47), 5% contrast acuity (beta = -0.43), visual acuity in 100% contrast (beta = -0.18), and residual refraction in spherical equivalent (beta = 0.20) were significant predictors (P ≤ .001), while high-order aberrations (beta = -0.07, P = .22) were not significant predictors. Visual acuity (beta = -0.12, P = .07) and high-order aberrations (beta = -0.04, P = .58) were not significant predictors of mesopic AULCSF. Bland-Altman plots show that photopic CSF Acuity and visual acuity had a mean difference of 0.19 ± 0.01 logMAR with limits of agreement (LOAs) at -0.01 and 0.39 logMAR. Photopic CSF Acuity and 5% contrast acuity had a mean difference of -0.06 ± 0.01 logMAR with LOAs at -0.33 and 0.21 logMAR. CONCLUSION: Quality of vision recovers at postoperative 1 week after LASIK and at postoperative 1 month after PRK-MMC. The standard black-on-white high-contrast, chart-based visual acuity test is weak in predicting quality of vision. The qCSF detects mild-to-moderate visual changes and is suitable for quality of vision assessment following refractive eye surgery.