Perez-Straziota Claudia E, Randleman J Bradley, Stulting R Doyle
Emory Eye Center and Emory Vision, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Feb;35(2):256-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.10.047.
To determine which of 3 methods for measuring preoperative refractive error yields the best refractive outcomes after wavefront-guided (Visx Star S4) or wavefront-optimized (WaveLight Allegretto Wave) excimer laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
Emory Eye Center and Emory Vision, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
This retrospective analysis of LASIK, performed from June to December 2007, analyzed sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent (SE) refractions generated from 3 methods (manifest refraction, aberrometer autorefraction [CustomVue WaveScan], corneal analyzer autorefraction [Nidek ARK-10000 OPD]), actual programmed treatment, and absolute deviation from ideal treatment (deviation) for each technique.
In the wavefront-guided group (63 eyes, 33 patients), manifest refraction and aberrometer autorefraction generated similar deviation for sphere and SE; both were significantly better than corneal analyzer autorefraction (P= .02 and P= .03, respectively). Aberrometer autorefraction generated less cylinder deviation than the other methods (both P= .003). In the wavefront-optimized group (61 eyes, 36 patients), manifest refraction generated less deviation for sphere and SE than aberrometer autorefraction or corneal analyzer autorefraction (sphere: P= .005 and P= .009, respectively; SE: P= .005 and P= .002, respectively). Manifest refraction and aberrometer autorefraction cylinder generated similar deviation, while aberrometer autorefraction was less than corneal analyzer autorefraction (P= .041).
Overall, manifest refraction was most accurate in generating postoperative emmetropia with both laser treatments; however, aberrometer autorefraction produced the least cylinder deviation for wavefront-guided treatment. Corneal analyzer autorefraction produced the least accurate results with both lasers.
确定在波前引导（威视S4）或波前优化（鹰视酷眼）准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术（LASIK）后，三种测量术前屈光不正的方法中哪种能产生最佳的屈光效果。
美国佐治亚州亚特兰大市埃默里大学埃默里眼科中心和埃默里视力中心。
这项对2007年6月至12月进行的LASIK手术的回顾性分析，分析了三种方法（显然验光、像差仪自动验光[科医人威视像差仪]、角膜分析仪自动验光[尼德克ARK-10000 OPD]）得出的球镜、柱镜和等效球镜（SE）屈光度、实际编程治疗以及每种技术与理想治疗的绝对偏差（偏差）。
在波前引导组（63只眼，33例患者）中，显然验光和像差仪自动验光得出的球镜和SE偏差相似；两者均显著优于角膜分析仪自动验光（分别为P = .02和P = .03）。像差仪自动验光产生的柱镜偏差比其他方法小（均为P = .003）。在波前优化组（61只眼，36例患者）中，显然验光得出的球镜和SE偏差比像差仪自动验光或角膜分析仪自动验光小（球镜：分别为P = .005和P = .009；SE：分别为P = .005和P = .002）。显然验光和像差仪自动验光得出的柱镜偏差相似，而像差仪自动验光小于角膜分析仪自动验光（P = .041）。
总体而言,两种激光治疗中，显然验光在产生术后正视方面最为准确；然而，像差仪自动验光在波前引导治疗中产生最小的柱镜偏差。角膜分析仪自动验光在两种激光治疗中得出的结果最不准确。
