Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

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

By Sikder S, Neuffer M, Church D, Mifflin MD, Moshirfar M, Churgin DS, Betts BS and Hsu M


Majid Moshirfar1, Daniel S Churgin2, Brent S Betts3, Maylon Hsu1, Shameema Sikder4, Marcus Neuffer1, Dane Church5, Mark D Mifflin11University of Utah, John A Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ; 3Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; 5Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USABackground: The purpose of this study was to compare differences in visual outcomes, higher-order aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and dry eye in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy using wavefront-guided VISX CustomVue™ and wavefront-optimized WaveLight® Allegretto platforms.Methods: In this randomized, prospective, single-masked, fellow-eye study, photorefractive keratectomy was performed on 46 eyes from 23 patients, with one eye randomized to WaveLight Allegretto, and the fellow eye receiving VISX CustomVue. Three-month postoperative outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, refractive error, root mean square of total and grouped higher-order aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and Schirmer’s testing.Results: Mean values for uncorrected distance visual acuity (logMAR) were —0.03 ± 0.07 and —0.06 ± 0.09 in the wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided groups, respectively (P = 0.121). Uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better was achieved in 91% of eyes receiving wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy, and 87% of eyes receiving wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy, whereas uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/15 was achieved in 35% of the wavefront-optimized group and 64% of the wavefront-guided group (P ≥ 0.296). While root mean square of total higher-order aberration, coma, and trefoil tended to increase in the wavefront-optimized group (P = 0.091, P = 0.115, P = 0.459, respectively), only spherical aberration increased significantly (P = 0.014). Similar increases were found in wavefront-guided root mean square of total higher-order aberration (P = 0.113), coma (P = 0.403), trefoil (P = 0.603), and spherical aberration (P = 0.014). There was no significant difference in spherical aberration change when comparing the two platforms. The wavefront-guided group showed an increase in contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles per degree (P = 0.013).Conclusion: Both VISX CustomVue and WaveLight Allegretto platforms performed equally in terms of visual acuity, safety, and predictability in photorefractive keratectomy. The wavefront-guided group showed slightly improved contrast sensitivity. Both lasers induced a comparable degree of statistically significant spherical aberration, and tended to increase other higher-order aberration measures as well.Keywords: wavefront-guided, wavefront-optimized, photorefractive keratectom

Topics: Ophthalmology, RE1-994, Medicine, R, DOAJ:Ophthalmology, DOAJ:Medicine (General), DOAJ:Health Sciences
Publisher: Dove Medical Press
Year: 2011
OAI identifier:
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.