Comparison and analysis of FDA reported visual outcomes of the three latest platforms for LASIK: wavefront guided Visx iDesign, topography guided WaveLight Allegro Contoura, and topography guided Nidek EC-5000 CATz

Majid Moshirfar,1,2 Tirth J Shah,3 David Franklin Skanchy,4 Steven H Linn,1 Paul Kang,3 Daniel S Durrie5 1HDR Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Salt Lake City, UT, 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, 3University of Arizona College of Medicine – Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, 4McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, TX, 5Durrie Vision, Kansas City, KS, USA Purpose: To compare and analyze the differences in visual outcomes between Visx iDesign Advanced WaveScan Studio™ System, Alcon Wavelight Allegro Topolyzer and Nidek EC-5000 using Final Fit™ Custom Ablation Treatment Software from the submitted summary of safety and effectiveness of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.Methods: In this retrospective comparative study, 334 eyes from Visx iDesign, 212 eyes from Alcon Contour, and 135 eyes from Nidek CATz platforms were analyzed for primary and secondary visual outcomes. These outcomes were compared via side-by-side graphical and tabular representation of the FDA data. Statistical significance was calculated when appropriate to assess differences. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 12 months was 20/19.25±8.76, 20/16.59±5.94, and 20/19.17±4.46 for Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. In at least 90% of treated eyes at 3 months and 12 months, all three lasers showed either no change or a gain of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). Mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 months showed a clinically significant increase of 41.3%, 25.1%, and 10.6% for eyes using Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. Photopic contrast sensitivity at 6 months showed a clinically significant increase of 19.2%, 31.9%, and 10.6% for eyes using Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. Conclusion: FDA data for the three platforms shows all three were excellent with respect to efficacy, safety, accuracy, and stability. However, there are some differences between the platforms with certain outcome measurements. Overall, patients using all three lasers showed significant improvements in primary and secondary visual outcomes after LASIK surgery. Keywords: wavefront-guided, topography-guided, LASIK, wavefront optimize

Short-term visual result after simultaneous photorefractive keratectomy and small-aperture cornea inlay implantation

Majid Moshirfar,1,2 Ryan T Wallace,3 David F Skanchy,4 Jordan D Desautels,5 Steven H Linn,1 Phillip C Hoopes Jr,1 Daniel S Durrie1,6 1Hoopes, Durrie, Rivera, Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, 3Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 4McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, 5Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 6Durrie Vision, Overland Park, KS, USA Purpose: To report the short-term results of simultaneous photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and small-aperture cornea inlay implantation (KAMRA) surgery in treating presbyopia. Methods: Simultaneous PRK and KAMRA inlay surgery was performed on 21 patients from July 2015 to March 2016. Follow-up exams were conducted at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Our patients were also divided preoperatively into three categories: myopic, hyperopic, and emmetropic. Over the 6-month period, the main outcome measures were uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), changes in best-corrected distance visual acuity, and mean spherical equivalent refraction. Results: At 6-month follow-up, 83% (10/12) of patients had a monocular UNVA of 20/40 or better, and 75% had a binocular UNVA of 20/40 (J5) or better. At 6 months, the overall mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) was -0.60 D (±0.42 standard deviation [SD], range: -1.38 to -0.13) with a mean change of -0.43 D (±1.19 SD, range: -1.5 to 2.63) compared to preoperative data. Overall, 91% (10/11) of patients were within a ±0.5 D range of our target -0.75 D for KAMRA use. One-hundred percent (5/5) of the hyperopes, 50% (1/2) of emmetropes, and 100% (4/4) of myopes met the targeted range. At 6 months, the MRSE for the hyperopic subgroup (n=5) was 0.33 D (±0.20 SD), the MRSE for the emmetropic subgroup (n=2) was -1.19 D (±0.19 SD), and the MRSE for the myopic subgroup (n=4) was -0.66 D (±0.36 SD). Conclusion: Based on preliminary results and a small sample size, it seems that simultaneous PRK and KAMRA is effective and predictable. There are multiple advantages in performing simultaneous PRK and KAMRA including a shorter recovery time and less steroid use than the two surgeries performed separately. Keywords: KAMRA, PRKamra, PRK, femptosecond, corneal, presbyopi

Hydrogel intracorneal lenses in aphakic eyes

Background: The theoretical benefits of synthetic keratophakia over conventional corneal lamellar procedures are the elimination of donor concerns and superior refractive predictability Additionally, synthetic material can be inspected for optical quality and power, and it can be sterilized. Furthermore, visual recovery should be more rapid since epithelium is not removed from the central part of the cornea and the need for keratocyte repopulation is eliminated. Objective: To present results on patients who received an intracorneal implant (Kerato-Gel, Allergan Medical Optics, Irvine, Calif) that was made from lidofilcon A, a glucose-permeable hydrogel with an equilibrium water content of 68%. Methods: The intracorneal implants were implanted in 35 adult patients for correction of aphakia. Inclusion criteria excluded patients with aphakia who were candidates for intraocular lenses. Results: A total of 19 patients were followed up through 2 years postoperatively. For 16 patients with 2-year postoperative refractive data, the average spherical equivalent was -0.63 +/- 2.07 diopters (D). At 2 years, 88% of patients were within +/-3.00 D of plano and 50% were within +/-1.00 D. The mean change in Snellen's line for corrected visual acuity was -3.25 lines at 2 years for an patients and -2.0 lines for a subgroup of five patients who were free of vision-limiting preoperative disease. Conclusions: Results suggest that this intracorneal implant is well tolerated by the cornea and can provide predictable refractive results in patients with high-risk aphakia. Limitations of the procedure are uneven microkeratome resections, loss of best-corrected visual acuity, and irregular astigmatism in some patients. Although these data show good evidence of biocompatibility of the implant material, technical surgical progress is needed to advance this procedure into clinical therapeutic practice