Cargando…

Contralateral Eye Study of Topography Guided versus Q Value Adjusted Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: 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. METHODS: Prospective randomized controll...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gad, Rania E, Hosny, Mohamed, Ahmed, Rania A, Sherif, Ahmed M, Salah Eldin, Yehia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8080117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33935490
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S300232
_version_ 1783685362417139712
author Gad, Rania E
Hosny, Mohamed
Ahmed, Rania A
Sherif, Ahmed M
Salah Eldin, Yehia
author_facet Gad, Rania E
Hosny, Mohamed
Ahmed, Rania A
Sherif, Ahmed M
Salah Eldin, Yehia
author_sort Gad, Rania E
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8080117
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80801172021-04-29 Contralateral Eye Study of Topography Guided versus Q Value Adjusted Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism Gad, Rania E Hosny, Mohamed Ahmed, Rania A Sherif, Ahmed M Salah Eldin, Yehia Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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. Dove 2021-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8080117/ /pubmed/33935490 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S300232 Text en © 2021 Gad et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Gad, Rania E
Hosny, Mohamed
Ahmed, Rania A
Sherif, Ahmed M
Salah Eldin, Yehia
Contralateral Eye Study of Topography Guided versus Q Value Adjusted Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism
title Contralateral Eye Study of Topography Guided versus Q Value Adjusted Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism
title_full Contralateral Eye Study of Topography Guided versus Q Value Adjusted Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism
title_fullStr Contralateral Eye Study of Topography Guided versus Q Value Adjusted Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism
title_full_unstemmed Contralateral Eye Study of Topography Guided versus Q Value Adjusted Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism
title_short Contralateral Eye Study of Topography Guided versus Q Value Adjusted Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism
title_sort contralateral eye study of topography guided versus q value adjusted photorefractive keratectomy in myopia and myopic astigmatism
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8080117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33935490
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S300232
work_keys_str_mv AT gadraniae contralateraleyestudyoftopographyguidedversusqvalueadjustedphotorefractivekeratectomyinmyopiaandmyopicastigmatism
AT hosnymohamed contralateraleyestudyoftopographyguidedversusqvalueadjustedphotorefractivekeratectomyinmyopiaandmyopicastigmatism
AT ahmedraniaa contralateraleyestudyoftopographyguidedversusqvalueadjustedphotorefractivekeratectomyinmyopiaandmyopicastigmatism
AT sherifahmedm contralateraleyestudyoftopographyguidedversusqvalueadjustedphotorefractivekeratectomyinmyopiaandmyopicastigmatism
AT salaheldinyehia contralateraleyestudyoftopographyguidedversusqvalueadjustedphotorefractivekeratectomyinmyopiaandmyopicastigmatism