PloS one · 2015
Comparison of astigmatic correction after femtosecond lenticule extraction and small-incision lenticule extraction for myopic astigmatism.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kobashi Hidenaga, Kamiya Kazutaka, Ali Mohamed A, Igarashi Akihito, Elewa Mohamed Ehab M, Shimizu Kimiya
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare postoperative astigmatic correction between femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in eyes with myopic astigmatism.
METHODS: We examined 26 eyes of 26 patients undergoing FLEx and 26 eyes of 26 patients undergoing SMILE to correct myopic astigmatism (manifest astigmatism of 1 diopter (D) or more). Visual acuity, cylindrical refraction, the predictability of the astigmatic correction, and the astigmatic vector components using Alpin's method, were compared between the two groups 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference in manifest cylindrical refraction (p=0.74) or in the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D of their refraction (p=0.47) after the two surgical procedures. Moreover, no statistically significant difference was detected between the groups in astigmatic vector components, namely, surgically induced astigmatism (0.80), target induced astigmatism (p=0.87), astigmatic correction index (p=0.77), angle of error (p=0.24), difference vector (p=0.76), index of success (p=0.91), flattening effect (p=0.79), and flattening index (p=0.84).
CONCLUSIONS: Both FLEx and SMILE procedures are essentially equivalent in correcting myopic astigmatism using vector analysis, suggesting that the lifting or non-lifting of the flap does not significantly affect astigmatic outcomes after these surgical procedures.
METHODS: We examined 26 eyes of 26 patients undergoing FLEx and 26 eyes of 26 patients undergoing SMILE to correct myopic astigmatism (manifest astigmatism of 1 diopter (D) or more). Visual acuity, cylindrical refraction, the predictability of the astigmatic correction, and the astigmatic vector components using Alpin's method, were compared between the two groups 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference in manifest cylindrical refraction (p=0.74) or in the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D of their refraction (p=0.47) after the two surgical procedures. Moreover, no statistically significant difference was detected between the groups in astigmatic vector components, namely, surgically induced astigmatism (0.80), target induced astigmatism (p=0.87), astigmatic correction index (p=0.77), angle of error (p=0.24), difference vector (p=0.76), index of success (p=0.91), flattening effect (p=0.79), and flattening index (p=0.84).
CONCLUSIONS: Both FLEx and SMILE procedures are essentially equivalent in correcting myopic astigmatism using vector analysis, suggesting that the lifting or non-lifting of the flap does not significantly affect astigmatic outcomes after these surgical procedures.