M. Vokrojova MD, M. Vokrojova MD, D. Sivekova MD, L. Wagnerova
MD D. Sivekova MD, L. Wagnerova MD Prof. P. Kuchynka MD, PhD Prof.
P. Kuchynka MD, PhD The authors have no financial interest in the
presentation material COMPARISON OF POST-LASIK OUTCOMES WITH
STANDARD EXCIMER PROCEDURE AND CUSTOM VUE PHOTOABLATION WITH IRIS
REGISTRATION Slide 2 PURPOSE, OBJECTIVE To evaluate the difference
in clinical outcomes between LASIK (VISX S4, AMO) patients treated
with standard (conventional) excimer procedure and wavefront -
guided procedure CustomVue with IRIS registration. To evaluate the
difference in clinical outcomes between LASIK (VISX S4, AMO)
patients treated with standard (conventional) excimer procedure and
wavefront - guided procedure CustomVue with IRIS registration.
Slide 3 Endpoints included Pre- and postoperative complete
ophthalmic examination was done including UCVA, BCVA, manifest
refraction, corneal topography, pachymetry (Pentacam, Oculus) and
wavefront analysis (VISX WaveScan, AMO). Pre- and postoperative
complete ophthalmic examination was done including UCVA, BCVA,
manifest refraction, corneal topography, pachymetry (Pentacam,
Oculus) and wavefront analysis (VISX WaveScan, AMO). Slide 4
MATERIALS, METHODS Group A: 84 eyes Group A: 84 eyes Average Age :
24,7 y. Average Age : 24,7 y. Preop UNCA: 0,08 (0,01-0,2) Preop
UNCA: 0,08 (0,01-0,2) Preop BSCVA: 1,0 Preop BSCVA: 1,0 Preop MRSE:
-4,10 1,95 Preop MRSE: -4,10 1,95 Surgical technique Surgical
technique Moria M2 microkeratom (130 m) Moria M2 microkeratom (130
m) Suction rings according keratometry nomograms Suction rings
according keratometry nomograms Excimer laser: VISX S4 conventional
procedure Excimer laser: VISX S4 conventional procedure Group B: 40
eyes Average Age : 25,6 y. Preop UNCA: 0,03 (0,01-0,2) Preop BSCVA:
1,0 Preop MRSE: -4,55 1,69 Surgical technique Moria M2 microkeratom
(130 m) Suction rings according keratometry nomograms Excimer
laser: VISX S4 Custom Vue with IRIS registartion procedure Slide 5
MATERIALS, METHODS Slide 6 RESULTS UNCVA/BCVA, Efficacy index Group
A (n=84) Efficacy index: post.UCVA/preop.BCVA 1,05 0,17 Efficacy
index: post.UCVA/preop.BCVA 1,06 0,18 Group B (n=40) Slide 7 RMS
error preop RMS error postop Standard LASIK (n=84) 0,33 m 0,135 SD
0,51 m 0,193 SD CustomVue LASIK with IRIS registration (n=40) 0,36
m 0,149 SD 0,42 m 0,146 SD RESULTS RESULTS Wavefront analysis p=
0,012 Pupil size : 6 mm Slide 8 MRSESD Standard LASIK (n=84)-0,120
0,392 CustomVue LASIK with IRIS registration (n=40)-0,086 0,393
RESULTS RESULTS MRSE 6 month postop 0,36 p= 0,36 Slide 9 RESULTS
Predictability scattergrams of attamted vs. achieved refraction, 6
month postop Slide 10 RESULTS RESULTS Refractive outcome (MRSE) 6
month postop Slide 11 RESULTS Stability of refraction Slide 12
CONCLUSION Our results show that the Wavefront - guided procedure
does not treat the current HOAs, but reduces the HOAs induced by
excimer laser. Our results show that the Wavefront - guided
procedure does not treat the current HOAs, but reduces the HOAs
induced by excimer laser. Results of Wavefront analysis show that
the differences in postoperative HOAs in both groups is
statistically significant (p=0,012). Results of Wavefront analysis
show that the differences in postoperative HOAs in both groups is
statistically significant (p=0,012). The difference in the mean
postoperative MRSE in both groups is not statistically significant
(p=0,36). The difference in the mean postoperative MRSE in both
groups is not statistically significant (p=0,36).
