Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2021
PresbyPRK vs presbyLASIK using the SUPRACOR algorithm and micromonovision in presbyopic hyperopic patients: visual and refractive results at 12 months.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Boucenna William, Hagège Alain, Lussato Mikhael, Morfeq Hussein, Kochbati Elias, Jany Benjamin, Froussart-Maille Françoise, Delbarre Maxime
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcome and refractive results between presbyopic photorefractive keratectomy (presbyPRK) and presbyopic laser in situ keratomileusis (presbyLASIK) in presbyopic hyperopic patients using micromonovision and the SUPRACOR algorithm.
SETTING: Percy Military Hospital and private Laser Victor Hugo Center, France.
DESIGN: Observational retrospective nonrandomized.
METHODS: Twenty-three patients who had undergone presbyPRK or presbyLASIK were included and followed up for 12-months. Far and near visual acuity without correction in monocular and binocular, measurement of distance visual acuity with correction in monocular, evaluation of spherical equivalent (SE), aberrometry, and patient satisfaction were measured and analyzed in this study.
RESULTS: The study included 26 eyes of 13 patients in the presbyLASIK group and 20 eyes of 10 patients in the presbyPRK group. The mean age was 55.43 ± 4.6 years. Uncorrected binocular distance visual acuity was 0.030 ± 0.05 logMAR in the presbyLASIK group and 0 logMAR in the presbyPRK group (P = .066). Binocular near visual acuity without correction was 0.21 ± 0.11 logMAR in the presbyLASIK group and 0.30 ± 0.15 logMAR in the presbyPRK group (P = .0398). For the dominant eyes, the SE was -0.08 ± 0.48 diopters (D) in the presbyLASIK group and 0.16 ± 0.82 D in the presbyPRK group (P = .3995). For nondominant eyes, the SE was -0.44 ± 0.50 D in the presbyLASIK group and 0.12 ± 0.65 D in the presbyPRK group (P = .0254).
CONCLUSIONS: PresbyPRK and presbyLASIK were comparable in efficacy, stability, predictability, and safety. PresbyPRK could be a safe and effective surgical alternative for the hyperopic presbyopic patient.
SETTING: Percy Military Hospital and private Laser Victor Hugo Center, France.
DESIGN: Observational retrospective nonrandomized.
METHODS: Twenty-three patients who had undergone presbyPRK or presbyLASIK were included and followed up for 12-months. Far and near visual acuity without correction in monocular and binocular, measurement of distance visual acuity with correction in monocular, evaluation of spherical equivalent (SE), aberrometry, and patient satisfaction were measured and analyzed in this study.
RESULTS: The study included 26 eyes of 13 patients in the presbyLASIK group and 20 eyes of 10 patients in the presbyPRK group. The mean age was 55.43 ± 4.6 years. Uncorrected binocular distance visual acuity was 0.030 ± 0.05 logMAR in the presbyLASIK group and 0 logMAR in the presbyPRK group (P = .066). Binocular near visual acuity without correction was 0.21 ± 0.11 logMAR in the presbyLASIK group and 0.30 ± 0.15 logMAR in the presbyPRK group (P = .0398). For the dominant eyes, the SE was -0.08 ± 0.48 diopters (D) in the presbyLASIK group and 0.16 ± 0.82 D in the presbyPRK group (P = .3995). For nondominant eyes, the SE was -0.44 ± 0.50 D in the presbyLASIK group and 0.12 ± 0.65 D in the presbyPRK group (P = .0254).
CONCLUSIONS: PresbyPRK and presbyLASIK were comparable in efficacy, stability, predictability, and safety. PresbyPRK could be a safe and effective surgical alternative for the hyperopic presbyopic patient.