Gad Rania E, Hosny Mohamed, Ahmed Rania A, Sherif Ahmed M, Salah Eldin Yehia
Ophthalmology Department, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ophthalmology Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Clin Ophthalmol. 2021 Apr 23;15:1735-1749. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S300232. eCollection 2021.
To compare visual outcome, higher order aberrations (HOAs) of topography guided and Q value adjusted ablation in the fellow eye of patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism.
Prospective randomized controlled interventional clinical study. The eyes of 52 patients undergoing PRK for myopia and astigmatism were included, that is, 104 eyes in total. In each patient, eyes were randomly allocated to group I: one eye received topography guided PRK using Contoura ablation software, or group II: the other eye received Q value adjusted PRK using Custom Q ablation software.
FOLLOW-UP: Six months.
At the end of 6 months, LogMAR UDVA was -0.04 ± 0.12 and -0.05 ± 0.11 (p = 0.688), while LogMAR CDVA was -0.06 ± 0.09 and -0.06 ± 0.1 in group I and group II, respectively (p = 0.972). Both groups showed a progressive oblate shift with time. This oblate shift was insignificantly less in group I by Topolyzer at 6mm, 15° and 30° at 6 months (p = 0.102, p = 0.138, p = 0.245, respectively). Topolyzer identified a significant difference between the change in coma and trefoil in both groups at 6 months (p<0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). This was caused by the significant worsening of coma in group II (p<0.001) and the significant improvement of trefoil in group I (p = 0.007). No significant difference was found between groups in the change of ISV or ABR (p = 0.955 and 0.982, respectively). Ablation depth is a significant predictor of ΔQ at 6mm, 15° and 30° (p = 0.009, 0.039 and 0, respectively). No significant difference was found in the Strehl ratio or contrast sensitivity, although they were insignificantly better in group I (p = 0.785 and p = 0.745, respectively).
TG PRK and CQ PRK yielded similar results regarding UDVA, CDVA, MRSE, safety, predictability and contrast sensitivity. Both groups showed a progressive oblate shift, which was less in the TG group but the difference was statistically insignificant. TG PRK showed significantly improved trefoil HOA as compared to CQ PRK.
比较在接受准分子激光角膜切削术(PRK)矫正近视和近视散光患者的对侧眼中,地形图引导消融和Q值调整消融的视觉效果及高阶像差(HOAs)。
前瞻性随机对照干预性临床研究。纳入52例接受PRK治疗近视和散光的患者的眼睛,共104只眼。在每位患者中,眼睛被随机分配到I组:一只眼使用Contoura消融软件进行地形图引导的PRK,或II组:另一只眼使用Custom Q消融软件进行Q值调整的PRK。
6个月。
在6个月末,I组的LogMAR最佳矫正视力(UDVA)为-0.04±0.12,II组为-0.05±0.11(p = 0.688),而I组和II组的LogMAR矫正视力(CDVA)分别为-0.06±0.09和-0.06±0.1(p = 0.972)。两组均随时间出现渐进性扁圆移位。6个月时,I组在6mm、15°和30°处使用Topolyzer测量的这种扁圆移位略小,但差异无统计学意义(分别为p = 0.102、p = 0.138、p = 0.245)。Topolyzer发现两组在6个月时彗差和三叶草像差的变化存在显著差异(分别为p<0.001和p = 0.001)。这是由于II组彗差显著恶化(p<0.001)和I组三叶草像差显著改善(p = 0.007)。两组在不规则散光(ISV)或高阶像差总和(ABR)的变化上未发现显著差异(分别为p = 0.955和0.982)。消融深度是6mm、15°和30°处ΔQ的显著预测因素(分别为p = 0.009、0.039和0)。斯特列尔比或对比敏感度无显著差异,尽管I组略好但差异无统计学意义(分别为p = 0.785和p = 0.745)。
地形图引导的PRK(TG PRK)和Q值调整的PRK(CQ PRK)在最佳矫正视力、矫正视力、平均绝对屈光误差、安全性、可预测性和对比敏感度方面产生相似结果。两组均出现渐进性扁圆移位,TG组较小但差异无统计学意义。与CQ PRK相比,TG PRK显示三叶草高阶像差显著改善。