Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2015
Comparison of femtosecond laser small-incision lenticule extraction and laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy to correct myopic astigmatism.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне 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.
Qian Yishan, Huang Jia, Zhou Xingtao, Wang Yutung
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of correcting myopic astigmatism with femtosecond laser small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) versus laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK).
SETTING: The study was conducted at the Ophthalmology Department, Eye and ENT Hospital, Shanghai, China.
DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional study.
METHODS: This study included patients who underwent small-incision lenticule extraction or LASEK for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Preoperative and 6-month postoperative astigmatism values were analyzed. The efficacies of the 2 surgeries to correct astigmatism were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 180 right eyes of 180 patients (small-incision lenticule extraction: n = 113, LASEK: n = 67) were included. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups in the preoperative astigmatism (small-incision lenticule extraction: 1.16 ± 0.85D, LASEK: 1.16 ± 0.83D, P > .05) or the postoperative astigmatism (small-incision lenticule extraction: 0.35 ± 0.37D; LASEK: 0.31 ± 0.42D, P > .05), determined by manifest refraction. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups in surgically induced astigmatism vector (small-incision lenticule extraction: 1.13 ± 0.83D, LASEK: 1.01 ± 0.65D, P > .05). The correction index was higher for the small-incision lenticule extraction group (1.05 ± 0.53) than for the LASEK group (0.95 ± 0.21, P = .045). The postoperative astigmatism was significantly higher for the small-incision lenticule extraction group when the preoperative astigmatism was 1.0 D or less (small-incision lenticule extraction: 0.26 ± 0.30D, LASEK: 0.12 ± 0.20D, P = .007) and lower for the small-incision lenticule extraction group when the preoperative astigmatism was more than 2.0 D (small-incision lenticule extraction: 0.48 ± 0.37D, LASEK: 0.89 ± 0.46D, P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: An adjustment of nomograms for correcting low astigmatism (≤1.0 D) by small-incision lenticule extraction is suggested due to the tendency toward overcorrection, whereas a nomogram adjustment for tissue-saving ablation profile is needed for the correction of high astigmatism (>2.0 D) by LASEK due to the tendency toward undercorrection.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.
SETTING: The study was conducted at the Ophthalmology Department, Eye and ENT Hospital, Shanghai, China.
DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional study.
METHODS: This study included patients who underwent small-incision lenticule extraction or LASEK for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Preoperative and 6-month postoperative astigmatism values were analyzed. The efficacies of the 2 surgeries to correct astigmatism were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 180 right eyes of 180 patients (small-incision lenticule extraction: n = 113, LASEK: n = 67) were included. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups in the preoperative astigmatism (small-incision lenticule extraction: 1.16 ± 0.85D, LASEK: 1.16 ± 0.83D, P > .05) or the postoperative astigmatism (small-incision lenticule extraction: 0.35 ± 0.37D; LASEK: 0.31 ± 0.42D, P > .05), determined by manifest refraction. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups in surgically induced astigmatism vector (small-incision lenticule extraction: 1.13 ± 0.83D, LASEK: 1.01 ± 0.65D, P > .05). The correction index was higher for the small-incision lenticule extraction group (1.05 ± 0.53) than for the LASEK group (0.95 ± 0.21, P = .045). The postoperative astigmatism was significantly higher for the small-incision lenticule extraction group when the preoperative astigmatism was 1.0 D or less (small-incision lenticule extraction: 0.26 ± 0.30D, LASEK: 0.12 ± 0.20D, P = .007) and lower for the small-incision lenticule extraction group when the preoperative astigmatism was more than 2.0 D (small-incision lenticule extraction: 0.48 ± 0.37D, LASEK: 0.89 ± 0.46D, P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: An adjustment of nomograms for correcting low astigmatism (≤1.0 D) by small-incision lenticule extraction is suggested due to the tendency toward overcorrection, whereas a nomogram adjustment for tissue-saving ablation profile is needed for the correction of high astigmatism (>2.0 D) by LASEK due to the tendency toward undercorrection.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.