Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.51(11) > 1008679

TOOLS
Hong, Lee, Kim, Kim, and Tchah: Clinical Results of Wavefront-guided LASIK
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2010;51(11):1438-1444.

Published online: 7 September 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2010.51.11.1438

Clinical Results of Wavefront-guided LASIK

Jung Taeck Hong, MD, Jooeun Lee, MD, Jae Yong Kim, MD, Myoung Joon Kim, MD, Hungwon Tchah, MD

Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Hungwon Tchah, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center #388-1 Pungnap-2 dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea Tel: 82-2-3010-3674, Fax: 82-2-470-6440, E-mail: hwtchah@amc.seoul.kr

Received 10 March 2010       Accepted 18 August 2010

Copyright © 2010 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate and compare the clinical outcomes of wavefront-guided LASIK performed by 2 different laser platforms.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of consecutive cases of eyes that underwent wavefront-guided LASIK by using the VISX S4 CustomVue system and the Zyoptix Z100 system advanced personalized mode. All procedures were performed by one surgeon. Fifty-six eyes of 36 patients were included. Of the 56 eyes, 30 eyes underwent LASIK by using the VISX S4 CustomVue system (CustomVue group), and other 26 eyes underwent LASIK by using the Zyoptix Z100 system (APT group). Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), manifest refraction, contrast sensitivity, total high order aberration (HOA), spherical aberration (SA) and Q-value were recorded preoperatively and at 1 week, 1 and 3 months postoperatively.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of preoperative UCVA, BCVA, manifest refraction, high order aberrations, Q-value and contrast sensitivity. Induced amount of SA was significantly lower in CustomVue group than in APT group (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Wavefront-guided LASIK performed by 2 different laser platforms caused clinically acceptable outcomes including good visual acuity and contrast sensitivity through 3 months. Furthermore, LASIK performed by VISX S4 CustomVue system caused less SA at three months after operation.

Keywords: High order aberration, Laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), VISX, Wavefront, Zyoptix

References

1. Pallikaris IG, Papatzanak ME, Stathi EZ. Laser in situ aberrations. Lasers Surg Med. 1990; 10:463–8.
2. Oliver KM, Hemenger RP, Corbett MC, et al. Corneal optical aberrations induced by photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg. 1997; 13:246–54.
crossref
3. Applegate RA, Howland HC, Sharp RP, et al. Corneal aberrations and visual performance after radial keratotomy. J Refract Surg. 1998; 14:397–407.
crossref
4. Oshika T, Klyce SD, Applegate RA, et al. Comparison of corneal aberrations after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999; 127:1–7.
5. Ginsburg AP, Evans DW, Sekuler R, et al. Contrast sensitivity predicts pilots' performance in aircraft simulation. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982; 59:105–9.
6. Pesudovs K, Hazel CA, Doran RML, Elliot DB. The usefulness of Vistech and FACT contrast sensitivity charts for cataract and refractive surgery outcomes research. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88:11–6.
crossref
7. Kim TI, Yang SJ, Tchah H. Bilateral comparison of wavefront-guided versus conventional laser in situ keratomileusis with Bausch and Lomb Zyoptix. J Refract Surg. 2004; 20:432–8.
crossref
8. Alió JL, Montés-Mico R. Wavefront-guided versus standard LASIK enhancement for residual refractive errors. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:191–7.
crossref
9. Lee YH, Kim GH, Roh GH. Comparison of conventional versus wavefront-guided LASIK. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:2050–8.
10. Lee SM, Lee JH, Kim MK, et al. Comparison of changes in high-er-order aberrations between conventional and wavefront-guided LASEK. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:1028–35.
crossref
11. Seiler T, Mrochen M, Kaemmerer M. Operative correction of ocular aberrations to improve visual acuity. J Refract Surg. 2000; 16:S619–22.
crossref
12. Kim YT, Chung ES. Clinical result of wavefront-guided corneal ablation: LASIK vs. LASEK. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:1114–20.
13. Kim MJ, Kim HJ, Joo CK. Clinical outcome of wavefront guided LASIK using the Fourier algorithm: 6-month follow-up. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:806–11.
14. Lee SJ, Kim HJ, Joo CK. Change of high-order aberration after wavefront-guided LASIK and LASEK. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:1848–54.
15. Panagopoulou SI, Pallikaris IG. Wavefront customized ablations with the WASCA Asclepion workstation. J Refract Surg. 2001; 17:S608–12.
crossref
16. Park KS, Lee HK, Lim SM, et al. Comparison of patient satisfaction between conventional and customized LASIK. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:883–92.
17. Mrochen M, Kaemmerer M, seiler T. Wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis: early results in three eyes. J Refract Surg. 2000; 16:116–21.
crossref
18. Cho SH, Joo CK, Kim MJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of wavefront-guided LASIK: 6-months follow-up. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:610–5.
19. Barreiro TP, Forseto Ados S, Pinto LF, et al. Wavefront-guided LASIK for low to moderate myopia: CustomCornea versus Zyoptix. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2009; 72:519–25.
20. Awwad ST, Bowman RW, Cavanagh HD, et al. Wavefront-guided LASIK for myopia using the LADAR CustomCornea and the VISX Customvue. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:26–38.
crossref
21. Kim KS, Song SW, Joo CK. One year clinical result of successful LASIK using VISX star. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000; 41:1139–45.
22. Calossi A. Corneal asphericity and spherical aberration. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:505–14.
crossref
23. Park JH, Kang JH, Jin KH. Changes in the Cornea and Anterior Chamber After LASEK: Pentacam findings. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:510–7.
crossref
24. Maeda N. Wavefront technology in ophthalmology. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2001; 12:294–9.
crossref
25. Mrochen M, Kaemmerer M, Seiler T. Clinical results of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis 3 months after surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:201–7.
crossref
26. Mutyala S, McDonald MB, Scheinblum KA, et al. Contrast sensitivity evaluation after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:1864–7.
crossref
27. Pérez-Santonja JJ, Sakla HF, Alió JL, et al. Contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:183–9.
crossref

Figure 1.
Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) after LASIK. In VISX S4 CustomVue group, UCVA over 20/25 was presented in 93.3% at postoperative 1 week, 90% at postoperative 1 month and 93.3% at postoperative 3 months. In Zyoptix Z100 APT group, UCVA over 20/25 was presented in 92.3% at postoperative 1 week, 84.6% at postoperative 1 month and 96.2% at postoperative 3 months.
jkos-51-1438f1.tif
Figure 2.
Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after LASIK.
jkos-51-1438f2.tif
Figure 3.
Contrast sensitivity test result of CustomVue and APT group in photopic condition at preoperative and post-operative 3 month. In each group, there was no significant dif-fence in preoperative and postoperative contrast sensitivity values under photopic condition (Wilcoxon test, P>0.05).
jkos-51-1438f3.tif
Figure 4.
Contrast sensitivity test result of CustomVue and APT group in mesopic condition at preoperative and post-operative 3 month. In each group, there was no significant dif-fence in preoperative and postoperative contrast sensitivity values under mesopic condition (Wilcoxon test, P>0.05).
jkos-51-1438f4.tif
Table 1.
Patient demographics and characteristics
Mean ± SD†
 P value*
CustomVue APT
Number of eyes 30 26
Age (yrs) 26.96 ± 5.37 26.80 ± 5.28 0.917
M: F 1:5 5:13
UCVA‡ 0.11 ± 0.14 0.13 ± 0.12 0.351
BCVA§ 1.00 ± 0.00 1.00 ± 0.00

* Mann-Whitney U-test

† SD: Standard deviation

‡ UCVA=Uncorrected visual acuity

§ BCVA=Best corrected visual acuity.

Table 2.
Comparison of postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between CustomVue group and APT group
Results Group Mean ± SD†
Post OP 1 mon Post OP 3 mon
UCVA‡ (logMAR) CustomVue 0.05 ± 0.09* 0.04 ± 0.06*
APT 0.04 ± 0.07* 0.01 ± 0.04*
BCVA§ (logMAR) CustomVue 0.00 ± 0.00* 0.00 ± 0.00*
APT 0.00 ± 0.00* 0.00 ± 0.00*

* Mann-Whitney U-test (all P>0.05)

† SD=Standard deviation

‡ UCVA=Uncorrected visual acuity

§ BCVA=Best corrected visual acuity.

Table 3.
Changes in total high order aberration, spherical aberration, coma aberration in CustomVue group and APT group
Results Group Mean ± SD†
Pre OP Post OP 1 mon Post OP 3 mon
RMS HoA‡ CustomVue 0.49 ± 0.20 0.58 ± 0.39 0.59 ± 0.37
APT 0.40 ± 0.13 0.55 ± 0.22 0.54 ± 0.19
Spherical aberration CustomVue 0.17 ± 0.12 0.20 ± 0.14 0.19 ± 0.16
APT 0.17 ± 0.19 0.35 ± 0.27* 0.37 ± 0.23*
Vertical coma aberration CustomVue 0.19 ± 0.13 0.25 ± 0.33 0.27 ± 0.28
APT 0.14 ± 0.11 0.17 ± 0.15 0.16 ± 0.19
Horizontal coma aberration CustomVue 0.11 ± 0.11 0.18 ± 0.19 0.18 ± 0.21
APT 0.12 ± 0.18 0.16 ± 0.16 0.15 ± 0.18

* There were significant increases of spherical aberration postoperatively (Wilcoxon test, P<0.05)

† SD=Standard deviation

‡ RMS HoA= Root mean square of total high order aberration.

Table 4.
Comparison of induced high order aberrations between CustomVue group and APT group
Results Group Mean ± SD† P value*
Induced total high order aberration CustomVue 0.10 ± 0.32 0.54
APT 0.14 ± 0.16
Induced spherical aberration CustomVue 0.02 ± 0.15 0.02
APT 0.20 ± 0.21

* Mann-Whitney U-test

† SD=Standard deviation.

TOOLS
Similar articles