1 / 10

Comparison of Hyperopic Lasik with Wavefront-Optimized, Conventional, and Wavefront-Guided Platforms

Comparison of Hyperopic Lasik with Wavefront-Optimized, Conventional, and Wavefront-Guided Platforms. Lewis R. Groden, M.D. (1,2) Timothy Saunders, M.D. (1) 1 University of South Florida Dept of Ophthalmology Tampa, FL 2 LasikPlus Vision Center Tampa, FL

sienna
Download Presentation

Comparison of Hyperopic Lasik with Wavefront-Optimized, Conventional, and Wavefront-Guided Platforms

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. Comparison of Hyperopic Lasik with Wavefront-Optimized, Conventional, and Wavefront-Guided Platforms Lewis R. Groden, M.D.(1,2) Timothy Saunders, M.D.(1) 1 University of South Florida Dept of Ophthalmology Tampa, FL 2 LasikPlus Vision Center Tampa, FL Financial Disclosure: LRG: consultant, Alcon TS: None

  2. Purpose • To determine if the uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) results of IntraLase hyperopic lasik differ based on the excimer platform used

  3. Methods:3 excimer platforms • Alcon Wavelight Allegretto Eye Q 400 wavefront-optimized (WFO) • AMO VISX S4 IR conventional (VSX) • AMO VISX S4 IR CustomVue wavefront-guided (CV)

  4. Methods • Retrospective chart review • 135 eyes, consecutive - WFO 34 eyes - VSX 68 eyes - CV 33 eyes • Hyperopic IntraLase lasik / Target= plano • One surgeon (LRG) • Follow-up: 3 month minimum

  5. Preop refractive error sphere cyl µ sphere VSX +1.25- +4.25 0- -1.50 +2.3 CV +1.25- +4.75 0- -1.75 +2.8 WFO +1.00- +5.50 0- -1.75 +2.5

  6. Patient demographics Age Sex years M : F (%) • VSX 44-64 (µ 54) 55 : 45 • CV 27-60 (µ 49) 41 : 59 • WFO 33-64 (µ 52) 50 : 50

  7. Results: UCVA 20/20 or better • Total: 94 / 135 eyes (70%) • WFO 25 / 34 eyes (74%) • VSX 49 / 68 eyes (72%) • CV 20 / 33 eyes (61%) • N.S. (Fisher’s exact test) wfo v cv p=0.31 ; wfo v vsx p=1.0 cv v vsx p=0.26

  8. Results: UCVA 20/25 or better • Total 114 / 135 eyes (84%) • WFO 30 / 34 eyes (88%) • VSX 58 / 68 eyes (85%) • CV 26 / 33 eyes (79%) • N.S. (Fisher’s exact test) wfo v cv p=0.34 ; wfo v vsx p=0.77 cv v vsx p= 0.41

  9. Previous StudiesFDA trials: hyperopic lasik results Laser SE /Cyl UCVA 20/20 20/40 (9-12 months) • VISX S2, S3 55% 98% • VISX S4 CV +3/+2 72 95 • B&L +4/+2 59 95 • Ladar 4000 CC +5/-3 59 95 • Wavelight +6/+5 68 98

  10. Conclusion • Good UCVA results were obtained with hyperopic IntraLase lasik done on each of the platforms studied. • There was no statistically significant difference in achieved UCVA between these three platforms • These results compare favorably to the results of the hyperopic lasik FDA trials

More Related