1 / 12

OPD Aberrometric Evaluation of Two Ablation Algorithms: OPA vs CATz

OPD Aberrometric Evaluation of Two Ablation Algorithms: OPA vs CATz. Paolo Vinciguerra MD, Fabrizio I. Camesasca, MD, Silvia Trazza, Orthoptist The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster Istituto Clinico Humanitas Milano - Italy. info@vincieye.it.

fleta
Download Presentation

OPD Aberrometric Evaluation of Two Ablation Algorithms: OPA vs CATz

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OPD Aberrometric Evaluation of Two Ablation Algorithms: OPA vs CATz Paolo Vinciguerra MD, Fabrizio I. Camesasca, MD, Silvia Trazza, Orthoptist The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster Istituto Clinico Humanitas Milano - Italy info@vincieye.it

  2. AblationAlgorhitmsand Aberrations The quest for the best ablation profile in surface excimer laser surgery may be helped by appropriate aberrometric analysis. We used aberrometry to evaluate two different ablation profiles provided by the Final Fit software for the NIDEK EC 5000 excimer laser.

  3. Materials And Methods • Four patients (mean age 31 ± 3 yrs) • Bilateral LASEK surgery for myopia • Evaluated preoperatively with the Nidek OPD aberrometer • In each patient: • the eye with less aberration and topographical surface irregularities received treatment with the new Optimized Profile Ablation algorithm (OPA, Group A) • the fellow eye was treated with the CATz algorithm (Group B). • Preoperative refraction and visual acuity were comparable within the two Groups: • 0.93 ±0.10 with -3.75 ±0.71 D SE vs • 0.93 ±0.10 with -4.25 ± 1.03

  4. Results • Six months postoperatively: • visual acuity was comparable • Group A, 1.0 with -0.06 ± 0.13 D SE • Group B, 0.98 ± 0.05 with -0.47 ± 0.33 D SE • corneal curvature gradient was comparable • Group A 12.90 ± 8.56 • Group B 12.49 ± 5.03 • Zernikeaberrations were significatively higher with OPA than with CATz.

  5. Preoperative Pt n°1, age 33 yrs 0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @0 DOMINATING EYE, LESS IRREGULARITIES EYE TO BE TREATED 0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @175

  6. Preoperative 0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @0 DOMINATING EYE, LESS ABERRATIONS EYE TO BE TREATED 0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @175

  7. PrEOPERATIVE 0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @0 EYE TO BE TREATED 0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @175

  8. 3 mos after Surgery Catz vs OPA 1.0 plano 1.0 plano

  9. after Surgery (3 mos) wf /OPD /ho Catz vs OPA 1.0 plano 1.0 plano

  10. After Surgery (3 mos) internal OPD Catz vs OPA 1.0 plano 1.0 plano

  11. CORNEAL CURVATURE GRADIENT MAP 1 mos post 6 mos post Catz 14.82 1.0 plano 1.0 plano OPA 1.0 plano 1.0 plano 15.64

  12. Conclusions Both ablation algorithms provided successful treatment, but aberrometric analysys failed to demonstrate any advantage of OPA vs CATz. CATZ OPA Zernike Aberrations UCVA & BSCVA POST SURGERY

More Related