Wavefront‐guided versus wavefront‐optimized photorefractive keratectomy: Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction

Purpose To compare visual outcomes following Visx Star S4 Customvue wavefront‐guided and Allegretto Wave Eye‐Q 400 Hz wavefront‐optimized photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Setting Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Design Prospective randomized clinical trial. Methods Active‐duty United States military soldiers were randomized to have wavefront‐guided (Visx Star S4 Customvue) or wavefront‐optimized PRK. Participants were followed up to 12 months postoperatively. Primary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and manifest spherical equivalent (SE). Secondary outcome measures included refractive astigmatism, higher‐order aberrations (HOAs), contrast sensitivity, subjective visual complaints, and patient satisfaction. Results The study evaluated 108 soldiers (mean age 30.3 years ± 6.3 [SD]; mean manifest SE −3.51 ± 1.63 D). At 12 months postoperatively, achieved UDVA, CDVA, manifest SE, and refractive astigmatism were comparable between wavefront‐guided and wavefront‐optimized groups (P > .213). Spherical aberration and total HOAs significantly increased from baseline in both groups (P < .006). The change in coma, trefoil, spherical aberration, and total HOAs (P > .254) were comparable between groups. There were fewer losses of photopic low‐contrast visual acuity (LCVA) at 5% contrast after wavefront‐guided compared to wavefront‐optimized treatment (P = .003). There was no significant difference between treatment groups in visual symptoms, overall vision expectation, and satisfaction (P > .075). Conclusion Wavefront‐guided treatment offered a small advantage in photopic LCVA. Refractive outcomes, HOAs, self‐reported visual difficulties, overall vision expectation, and satisfaction were otherwise comparable between wavefront‐guided and wavefront‐optimized treatments. Financial Disclosure No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

[1]  Steven C Schallhorn,et al.  Pupil size and quality of vision after LASIK. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[2]  Alberto Villarrubia,et al.  Comparison of Custom Ablation and Conventional Laser In Situ Keratomileusis for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism Using the Alcon Excimer Laser , 2009, Cornea.

[3]  Sandor E Kaupp,et al.  Comparison of night driving performance after wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK for moderate myopia. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[4]  L. Tian,et al.  Visual performance after conventional LASIK and wavefront-guided LASIK with iris-registration: results at 1 year. , 2013, International journal of ophthalmology.

[5]  Eung Kweon Kim,et al.  Measurement of contrast sensitivity and glare under mesopic and photopic conditions following wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK surgery. , 2006, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  D. Reinstein,et al.  Graphic reporting of outcomes of refractive surgery. , 2009, Journal of refractive surgery.

[7]  Guy M Kezirian,et al.  Wavefront-optimized versus wavefront-guided LASIK for myopic astigmatism with the ALLEGRETTO WAVE: three-month results of a prospective FDA trial. , 2008, Journal of refractive surgery.

[8]  S. Schallhorn,et al.  Role of depressive symptoms in patient satisfaction with visual quality after laser in situ keratomileusis , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[9]  Ronald R Krueger,et al.  Applications of wavefront technology , 2012, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[10]  D. Lam,et al.  Influence of wavefront aberration and corneal subepithelial haze on low-contrast visual acuity after photorefractive keratectomy. , 2005, American journal of ophthalmology.

[11]  Robert Montés-Micó,et al.  Wavefront analysis of higher order aberrations in dry eye patients. , 2004, Journal of refractive surgery.

[12]  Noel A Alpins,et al.  Practical astigmatism analysis for refractive outcomes in cataract and refractive surgery. , 2004, Survey of ophthalmology.

[13]  H. Hashemi,et al.  Wavefront-guided vs wavefront-optimized LASIK: a randomized clinical trial comparing contralateral eyes. , 2011, Journal of refractive surgery.

[14]  K. Na,et al.  Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis for patients with myopia: a prospective randomized contralateral eye study. , 2014, American journal of ophthalmology.

[15]  N A Alpins,et al.  A new method of analyzing vectors for changes in astigmatism , 1993, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[16]  Marco Lombardo,et al.  Wave aberration of human eyes and new descriptors of image optical quality and visual performance. , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[17]  R. Chuck,et al.  A comparison of wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided ablations , 2009, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[18]  R. D. Stulting,et al.  Standardized analyses of correction of astigmatism by laser systems that reshape the cornea. , 2006, Journal of refractive surgery.

[19]  Shameema Sikder,et al.  Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations , 2011, Clinical ophthalmology.

[20]  B. Randleman,et al.  Visual acuity and higher‐order aberrations with wavefront‐guided and wavefront‐optimized laser in situ keratomileusis , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[21]  M. Netto,et al.  Wavefront-guided ablation: evidence for efficacy compared to traditional ablation. , 2006, American journal of ophthalmology.

[22]  Shameema Sikder,et al.  A prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVue™ STAR S4 IR™ in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK): analysis of visual outcomes and higher order aberrations , 2011, Clinical ophthalmology.

[23]  Edward E Manche,et al.  Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis for patients with myopia: a prospective randomized contralateral eye study. , 2014, American journal of ophthalmology.

[24]  Lisa Toto,et al.  Prospective randomized comparison of wavefront-guided and conventional photorefractive keratectomy for myopia with the meditec MEL 70 laser. , 2004, Journal of refractive surgery.

[25]  J. B. Randleman,et al.  JRS standard for reporting astigmatism outcomes of refractive surgery. , 2014, Journal of refractive surgery.

[26]  G O Waring,et al.  Results of phase III excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. The Summit PRK Study Group. , 1997, Ophthalmology.

[27]  Ronald R Krueger,et al.  Wavefront ablation profiles in refractive surgery: description, results, and limitations. , 2012, Journal of refractive surgery.

[28]  Corina van de Pol,et al.  Normal‐eye Zernike coefficients and root‐mean‐square wavefront errors , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[29]  E. Manche,et al.  Prospective randomized contralateral eye evaluation of subjective quality of vision after wavefront-guided or wavefront- optimized photorefractive keratectomy. , 2014, Journal of refractive surgery.

[30]  Yifan Feng,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Wavefront-Guided vs. Wavefront-Optimized LASIK for Myopia , 2011, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[31]  E. Manche,et al.  One-year outcomes from a prospective, randomized, eye-to-eye comparison of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK in myopes. , 2013, Ophthalmology.

[32]  N. Alpins Astigmatism analysis by the Alpins method , 2001, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[33]  M. Mrochen,et al.  Wavefront‐optimized ablation profiles: Theoretical background , 2004, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[34]  N. Alpins Vector analysis of astigmatism changes by flattening, steepening, and torque , 1997, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.