A Model to Explain the Difference Between Changes in Refraction and Central Ocular Surface Power After Laser in situ Keratomileusis

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sudi Patel ◽  
Jorge L Alió ◽  
Juan J Pérez-Santonja
Ophthalmology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 108 (7) ◽  
pp. 1230-1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Battat ◽  
Angelo Macri ◽  
Dilek Dursun ◽  
Stephen C Pflugfelder

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ikuko Toda ◽  
Naoko Asano-Kato ◽  
Yoshiko Hori-Komai ◽  
Kazuo Tsubota

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 803-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Savini ◽  
Piero Barboni ◽  
Maurizio Zanini ◽  
Scheffer C G Tseng

2021 ◽  
pp. 112067212110593
Author(s):  
Maja Bohac ◽  
Alma Biscevic ◽  
Violeta Shijakova ◽  
Ivan Gabric ◽  
Kresimir Gabric ◽  
...  

Purpose To compare changes in astigmatism by refraction and total corneal astigmatism after tPRK, LASIK and FsLASIK. Setting Specialty Eye Hospital Svjetlost, Zagreb, Croatia. Design Partially masked, semi-randomized, prospective, case-by-case, interventional, clinical study. Methods Patients with a stable refraction (-0.75DS to −8.00DS, astigmatism ≤1.00DC) underwent tPRK, LASIK or FsLASIK without complication. Astigmatism was measured at both corneal surfaces over the central 3.2 mm zone (approximately using Pentacam HRTM) preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. Pentacam and refraction data were subjected to vector analysis to calculate the surgically induced changes in i) total corneal astigmatism (SIATCA) ii) any astigmatism by refraction (SIAR) and the vectorial difference (DV) between SIATCA and SIAR. Results Reporting key findings (p < .01), there was a significant difference between mean SIATCA and SIAR powers after tPRK (75eyes) but not after LASIK (100eyes) or FsLASIK (100eyes). Mean (±sd,95% CIs) values for DV powers were, tPRK −1.13DC(±0.71, −1.29 to −0.97), LASIK −0.39DC(±0.23,-0.44 to −0.34), FsLASIK −0.55DC(±0.38,-0.62 to −0.47). The differences were significant. For the tPRK and FsLASIK cases, linear regression revealed significant associations between I) SIATCA (x) &DV (z) powers (tPRK z = 1.586x-0.179, r  =  0.767, p < .01; FsLASIK z  =  0.442x-0.303, r  =  .484,p < .01), II) sines of SIATCA (x1) &DV (z1) axes (tPRK, z1 = 0.523 × 1 + 0.394, r = .650,p < .01; FsLASIK z1 = 0.460 × 1-0.308, r = .465,p < .01). Conclusions tPRK is more prone to unintended changes in astigmatism. The difference between SIATCA & SIAR after tPRK or FsLASIK is mediated by SIATCA. Photoablating deeper regions of the cornea reduces the gap between SIATCA & SIAR.


Author(s):  
Ibrahim Seven ◽  
Joshua S. Lloyd ◽  
William J. Dupps

The use of computational mechanics for assessing the structural and optical consequences of corneal refractive procedures is increasing. In practice, surgeons who elect to perform PRK rather than LASIK must often reduce the programmed refractive treatment magnitude to avoid overcorrection of myopia. Building on a recent clinical validation study of finite element analysis (FEA)-based predictions of LASIK outcomes, this study compares predicted responses in the validated LASIK cases to theoretical PRK treatments for the same refractive error. Simulations in 20 eyes demonstrated that PRK resulted in a mean overcorrection of 0.17 ± 0.10 D relative to LASIK and that the magnitude of overcorrection increased as a function of attempted correction. This difference in correction closely matched (within 0.06 ± 0.03 D) observed differences in PRK and LASIK from a historical nomogram incorporating thousands of cases. The surgically induced corneal strain was higher in LASIK than PRK and resulted in more forward displacement of the central stroma and, consequently, less relative flattening in LASIK. This FE model provides structural confirmation of a mechanism of action for the difference in refractive outcomes of these two keratorefractive techniques, and the results were in agreement with empirical clinical data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document