Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Refractive Outcomes, Contrast Sensitivity, Hoas, and Patient Satisfaction in Moderate Myopia: Wavefront-Optimized Versus Tissue-Saving Prk Publisher Pubmed



Nassiri N2 ; Sheibani K1 ; Azimi A3 ; Khosravi FM4 ; Heravian J3 ; Yekta A3 ; Moghaddam HO3 ; Nassiri S2 ; Yasseri M5 ; Nassiri N2
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Clinical Research and Development Center, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2. Imam Hossein Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  3. 3. Refractive Errors Research Center, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  4. 4. Research Committee, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  5. 5. School of Public Health, Public Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  6. 6. Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Source: Journal of Refractive Surgery Published:2015


Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and patient satisfaction after photorefractive keratectomy for correction of moderate myopia with two methods: tissue saving versus wavefront optimized. METHODS: In this prospective, comparative study, 152 eyes (80 patients) with moderate myopia with and without astigmatism were randomly divided into two groups: the tissue-saving group (Technolas 217z Zyoptix laser; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) (76 eyes of 39 patients) or the wavefront-optimized group (WaveLight Allegretto Wave Eye-Q laser; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) (76 eyes of 41 patients). Preoperative and 3-month postoperative refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, HOAs, and patient satisfaction were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean spherical equivalent was -4.50 ± 1.02 diopters. No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups in terms of uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity and spherical equivalent preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were seen in the amount of preoperative to postoperative contrast sensitivity changes between the two groups in photopic and mesopic conditions. HOAs and Q factor increased in both groups postoperatively (P = .001), with the tissue-saving method causing more increases in HOAs (P = .007) and Q factor (P = .039). Patient satisfaction was comparable between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both platforms were effective in correcting moderate myopia with or without astigmatism. No difference in refractive outcome, contrast sensitivity changes, and patient satisfaction between the groups was observed. Postoperatively, the tissue-saving method caused a higher increase in HOAs and Q factor compared to the wavefront-optimized method, which could be due to larger optical zone sizes in the tissue-saving group. Copyright © SLACK Incorporated.