Military medicine · 2017
Wavefront-Guided Versus Wavefront-Optimized Photorefractive Keratectomy: Visual and Military Task Performance.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Ryan Denise S, Sia Rose K, Stutzman Richard D, Pasternak Joseph F, Howard Robin S, Howell Christopher L, Maurer Tana, Torres Mark F, Bower Kraig S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare visual performance, marksmanship performance, and threshold target identification following wavefront-guided (WFG) versus wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).
METHODS: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, active duty U.S. military Soldiers, age 21 or over, electing to undergo PRK were randomized to undergo WFG (n = 27) or WFO (n = 27) PRK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Binocular visual performance was assessed preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively: Super Vision Test high contrast, Super Vision Test contrast sensitivity (CS), and 25% contrast acuity with night vision goggle filter. CS function was generated testing at five spatial frequencies. Marksmanship performance in low light conditions was evaluated in a firing tunnel. Target detection and identification performance was tested for probability of identification of varying target sets and probability of detection of humans in cluttered environments.
RESULTS: Visual performance, CS function, marksmanship, and threshold target identification demonstrated no statistically significant differences over time between the two treatments. Exploratory regression analysis of firing range tasks at 6 months showed no significant differences or correlations between procedures. Regression analysis of vehicle and handheld probability of identification showed a significant association with pretreatment performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Both WFG and WFO PRK results translate to excellent and comparable visual and military performance.
METHODS: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, active duty U.S. military Soldiers, age 21 or over, electing to undergo PRK were randomized to undergo WFG (n = 27) or WFO (n = 27) PRK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Binocular visual performance was assessed preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively: Super Vision Test high contrast, Super Vision Test contrast sensitivity (CS), and 25% contrast acuity with night vision goggle filter. CS function was generated testing at five spatial frequencies. Marksmanship performance in low light conditions was evaluated in a firing tunnel. Target detection and identification performance was tested for probability of identification of varying target sets and probability of detection of humans in cluttered environments.
RESULTS: Visual performance, CS function, marksmanship, and threshold target identification demonstrated no statistically significant differences over time between the two treatments. Exploratory regression analysis of firing range tasks at 6 months showed no significant differences or correlations between procedures. Regression analysis of vehicle and handheld probability of identification showed a significant association with pretreatment performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Both WFG and WFO PRK results translate to excellent and comparable visual and military performance.