Myopic Laser-Assisted Subepithelial Keratectomy (LASEK) outcomes using three different excimer laser platforms: a retrospective observational study.
Excimer laser
LASEK
Mitomycin C
Myopia
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Oct 2019
15 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
02
04
2019
accepted:
16
09
2019
entrez:
17
10
2019
pubmed:
17
10
2019
medline:
11
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the visual and refractive outcomes after myopic LASEK using three different excimer lasers and standardized surgical and mitomycin C (MMC) application protocols. In this retrospective, observational cohort study, we examined 122 eyes treated with Allegretto, 135 eyes treated with Esiris and 137 eyes treated with Technolas excimer lasers. All eyes were treated under the same surgical protocol, and a standardized MMC dosage was used. The three groups were refraction-matched, and both visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated at 1 and 7 days and 1 and 3 months after surgery. At 3 months postsurgery, Allegretto provided significantly better outcomes than Esiris and Technolas in terms of postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (1.11 ± 0.2 vs 1.01 ± 0.2 vs 0.98 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0001), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (1.13 ± 0.2 vs 1.10 ± 0.1 vs 1.04 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0001), residual sphere (- 0.01 ± 0.2 vs + 0.29 ± 0.7 vs + 0.27 ± 0.6) (P = 0.0001), and efficacy index (0.99 ± 0.2 vs 0.90 ± 0.2 vs 0.91 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0004). We found slightly better visual and refractive outcomes in the Allegretto group at 3 months post-op after LASEK with MMC to correct myopia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To compare the visual and refractive outcomes after myopic LASEK using three different excimer lasers and standardized surgical and mitomycin C (MMC) application protocols.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective, observational cohort study, we examined 122 eyes treated with Allegretto, 135 eyes treated with Esiris and 137 eyes treated with Technolas excimer lasers. All eyes were treated under the same surgical protocol, and a standardized MMC dosage was used. The three groups were refraction-matched, and both visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated at 1 and 7 days and 1 and 3 months after surgery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At 3 months postsurgery, Allegretto provided significantly better outcomes than Esiris and Technolas in terms of postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (1.11 ± 0.2 vs 1.01 ± 0.2 vs 0.98 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0001), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (1.13 ± 0.2 vs 1.10 ± 0.1 vs 1.04 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0001), residual sphere (- 0.01 ± 0.2 vs + 0.29 ± 0.7 vs + 0.27 ± 0.6) (P = 0.0001), and efficacy index (0.99 ± 0.2 vs 0.90 ± 0.2 vs 0.91 ± 0.2) (P = 0.0004).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We found slightly better visual and refractive outcomes in the Allegretto group at 3 months post-op after LASEK with MMC to correct myopia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31615462
doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1214-y
pii: 10.1186/s12886-019-1214-y
pmc: PMC6792330
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
205Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 2014 Jun;157(6):1170-1178.e1
pubmed: 24560995
J Refract Surg. 2008 May;24(5):516-23
pubmed: 18494345
Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:1339-47
pubmed: 22034553
Am J Ophthalmol. 1983 Dec;96(6):710-5
pubmed: 6660257
J Refract Surg. 2011 Nov;27(11):792-5
pubmed: 21524023
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006 May;32(5):779-84
pubmed: 16765794
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Dec;40(12):1980-4
pubmed: 25305150
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Aug;140(2):173-83
pubmed: 16023065
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Feb;37(2):392-408
pubmed: 21241926
J Refract Surg. 2004 Mar-Apr;20(2):127-31
pubmed: 15072311
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Sep;30(9):1929-33
pubmed: 15342057
J Refract Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;20(5):S614-8
pubmed: 15523985
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Dec;29(12):2351-7
pubmed: 14709296
Ophthalmology. 2008 Dec;115(12):2181-2191.e1
pubmed: 18692245
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Jun;34(6):916-9
pubmed: 18498995
J Refract Surg. 2011 Jan;27(1):38-48
pubmed: 20438023
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005 Aug;16(4):256-9
pubmed: 16000900
Surv Ophthalmol. 2009 Jul-Aug;54(4):487-502
pubmed: 19539836
J Refract Surg. 2011 Jan;27(1):13-7
pubmed: 20349856
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Oct;37(10):1858-64
pubmed: 21852067
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Oct;30(10):2138-44
pubmed: 15474827
Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Jul;84(7):605-10
pubmed: 17632309
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Jul;33(7):1158-76
pubmed: 17586371
J Refract Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;20(5):S606-13
pubmed: 15523984
Cornea. 2008 Apr;27(3):288-91
pubmed: 18362654
J Refract Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;20(5 Suppl):S693-8
pubmed: 15521270
J Refract Surg. 2015 Oct;31(10):683-90
pubmed: 26352793
J Refract Surg. 2007 Feb;23(2):139-45
pubmed: 17326353
Semin Ophthalmol. 2003 Mar;18(1):2-10
pubmed: 12759854
Arch Ophthalmol. 1989 May;107(5):641-2
pubmed: 2719572
Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 May;100(5):626-32
pubmed: 26359339
Ophthalmology. 2007 May;114(5):983-8
pubmed: 17337064
Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:1185-93
pubmed: 21966184
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Jan;133(1):51-9
pubmed: 25321951
J Refract Surg. 2011 Jul;27(7):530-41
pubmed: 21243972
Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:1159-68
pubmed: 22888213
J Refract Surg. 2008 Nov;24(9):885-90
pubmed: 19044228
Eye Vis (Lond). 2015 Mar 01;2:6
pubmed: 26605362
J Refract Surg. 2006 Mar;22(3):253-62
pubmed: 16602314
J Refract Surg. 2014 Jan;30(1):6-12
pubmed: 24868564