American journal of ophthalmology · 2023
Comparison of Subjective Visual Experiences and Ocular Symptoms After Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized LASIK in a Prospective Fellow Eye Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chiang Bryce, Manche Edward E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the subjective visual experience and ocular symptoms of fellow eyes treated with wavefront-optimized laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (WFO-LASIK) and wavefront-guided laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (WFG-LASIK).
DESIGN: Prospective randomized fellow eye, controlled study.
METHODS: A total of 200 eyes of 100 subjects from a single academic center were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment with WFO-LASIK in one eye and WFG-LASIK in the fellow eye. Subjects filled out a validated 14-part questionnaire for each eye at the preoperative visit and at postoperative months 1, 3, 6, and 12.
RESULTS: In comparing the number of subjects who reported symptoms in the WFG- vs WFO- LASIK eyes, there was no difference in the number reporting any visual experience (glare, halos, starbursts, hazy vision, blurred vision, distortion, double or multiple images, fluctuations in vision, focusing difficulties, and depth perception; all P > .05) or ocular symptoms (photosensitivity, dry eye, foreign body sensation, ocular pain; all P > .05). There was no preference for WFG-LASIK-treated (28%) or the WFO-LASIK-treated eye (29%), with the majority of subjects reporting no preference (43%; χ2P = .972). Of the subjects who preferred one eye or the other, the preferred eye saw statistically better than the fellow eye (0.8 ± 1.4 Snellen line, P = .0002). There was no other difference in subjective visual experience, ocular symptoms, or refractive characteristics when taking into account eye preference.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of subjects had no eye preference. For subjects who did have eye preference, the only detectable difference was better visual acuity in the preferred eye.
DESIGN: Prospective randomized fellow eye, controlled study.
METHODS: A total of 200 eyes of 100 subjects from a single academic center were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment with WFO-LASIK in one eye and WFG-LASIK in the fellow eye. Subjects filled out a validated 14-part questionnaire for each eye at the preoperative visit and at postoperative months 1, 3, 6, and 12.
RESULTS: In comparing the number of subjects who reported symptoms in the WFG- vs WFO- LASIK eyes, there was no difference in the number reporting any visual experience (glare, halos, starbursts, hazy vision, blurred vision, distortion, double or multiple images, fluctuations in vision, focusing difficulties, and depth perception; all P > .05) or ocular symptoms (photosensitivity, dry eye, foreign body sensation, ocular pain; all P > .05). There was no preference for WFG-LASIK-treated (28%) or the WFO-LASIK-treated eye (29%), with the majority of subjects reporting no preference (43%; χ2P = .972). Of the subjects who preferred one eye or the other, the preferred eye saw statistically better than the fellow eye (0.8 ± 1.4 Snellen line, P = .0002). There was no other difference in subjective visual experience, ocular symptoms, or refractive characteristics when taking into account eye preference.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of subjects had no eye preference. For subjects who did have eye preference, the only detectable difference was better visual acuity in the preferred eye.