Standard PRK Versus Q-value Adjusted Ablation PRK in Refractive Errors

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Feyz Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Ophthalmologist, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

3 General Practitioner, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the difference between the effect of standard photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and Q-value adjusted ablation PRK with Allegretto Eye-Q on the ocular refraction.Methods: In this clinical trial study performed in Parsian clinic of Isfahan, 75 candidates for photorefractive surgery were included. All of these patients underwent standard PRK in one eye and Q-value adjusted ablation PRK in the other eye. The efficacy of therapy was measured by visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, subjective refraction and patients’ satisfaction, 3 months after the surgery.Finding: The mean score of postoperative visual acuity in standard PRK group and Q-value adjusted group was 10.48 ± 1.38 and 10.51 ± 1.22 respectively without correction. The mean postoperative refraction of standard PRK and Q-value adjusted PRK was 0 ± 0.37 and 0.05 ± 0.3 respectively. There was no significant statistical difference in visual acuity, refraction, contrast sensitivity and postoperative satisfaction between the two groups.Conclusion: There is no significant difference between efficacy of standard PRK and Q-value adjusted PRK in optimizing visual acuity, subjective refraction, contrast sensitivity and patient satisfaction. 

Keywords

References

  1. Bennett AG, Rabetts RB. Bennett and Rabbett's Clinical Visual Optics. 2nd ed. London: Butter worths; 1988.
  2. MacRae S, Krueger R, Applegate RA, Editors. Customized Corneal Ablation: The Quest for SuperVision. 1st ed. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Incorporated; 2001.
  3. Atebara NH, Editor. 2007-2008 Basic and Clinical Science Course Section 13: Refractive Surgery. San Francisco, LA: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2007.
  4. Bricola G, Scotto R, Mete M, Cerruti S, Traverso CE. A 14-year follow-up of photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg 2009; 25(6): 545-52.
  5. Schallhorn SC, Blanton CL, Kaupp SE, Sutphin J, Gordon M, Goforth H Jr, et al. Preliminary results of photorefractive keratectomy in active-duty United States Navy personnel. Ophthalmology 1996; 103(1): 5-22.
  6. Niesen UM, Businger U, Schipper I. Disability glare after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy for myopi. J Refract Surg 1996; 12(2): S267-8.
  7. Vinciguerra P, Camesasca FI, Bains HS, Trazza S, Albè E. Photorefractive keratectomy for pri-mary myopia using NIDEK topography-guided customized aspheric transition zone. J Refract Surg 2009; 25(1 Suppl): S89-92.
  8. Mastropasqua L, Toto L, Zuppardi E, Nubile M, Carpineto P, Di Nicola M, et al. Photorefractive keratectomy with aspheric profile of ablation versus conventional photorefractive keratectomy for myopia correction: six-month controlled clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32(1): 109-16.
  9. Ghoreishi SM, Naderibeni A, Peyman A, Ris-manchian A, Eslami F. Aspheric profile versus wavefront-guided ablation photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia using the Allegretto Eye Q. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009; 19(4): 544-53.
  10. Stojanovic A, Wang L, Jankov MR, Nitter TA, Wang Q. Wavefront optimized versus custom-Q treatments in surface ablation for myopic astigmatism with the WaveLight ALLEGRETTO laser. J Refract Surg 2008; 24(8): 779-89.
  11. Koller T, Iseli HP, Hafezi F, Mrochen M, Seiler T. Q-factor customized ablation profile for the correction of myopic astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32(4): 584-9.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 28, Issue 115 - Serial Number 115
September and October 2011
Pages 909-914

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 November 2010
  • Revise Date: 29 April 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics