Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2014
Comparison of Wavelight Allegretto Eye-Q and Schwind Amaris 750S excimer laser in treatment of high 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.
Bohac Maja, Biscevic Alma, Koncarevic Mateja, Anticic Marija, Gabric Nikica, Patel Sudi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare functional outcomes of Wavelight Allegretto Eye-Q 400Hz and Schwind Amaris 750S excimer laser for astigmatism between 2 and 7 diopters(D).
METHODS: Prospective comparative non-randomized case series of 480 eyes assigned in two laser groups and further divided into myopic and mixed astigmatism subgroups. All treatments were centered on corneal vertex. One-year results were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was performed using z-test.
RESULTS: Both Allegretto and Amaris postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) improved in comparison to preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). The difference was significant in the Allegretto group for myopic astigmatism (p = 0.017). There was no difference in postoperative UDVA between lasers. Average sphere decreased in all groups for both lasers (p < 0.001) without difference in effectiveness of spherical correction between lasers for both groups. In Allegretto, average cylinder decreased from -3.30D to -0.55D in myopic astigmatism (p < 0.001) and from -3.84D to -0.85D in mixed astigmatism (p < 0.001). In Amaris average cylinder decreased from -3.21D to -0.43D in myopic astigmatism (p < 0.001) and from -3.66D to -0.58D in mixed astigmatism (p < 0.001). Amaris group had less residual astigmatism (myopic astigmatism p = 0.023, mixed astigmatism p < 0.001). Mean spherical aberration shifted from positive to negative in mixed astigmatism for both lasers.
CONCLUSION: Both lasers are effective in terms of UDVA, CDVA, spherical correction, and preservation of high-order aberrations. However, Amaris was more effective in cylinder correction.
METHODS: Prospective comparative non-randomized case series of 480 eyes assigned in two laser groups and further divided into myopic and mixed astigmatism subgroups. All treatments were centered on corneal vertex. One-year results were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was performed using z-test.
RESULTS: Both Allegretto and Amaris postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) improved in comparison to preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). The difference was significant in the Allegretto group for myopic astigmatism (p = 0.017). There was no difference in postoperative UDVA between lasers. Average sphere decreased in all groups for both lasers (p < 0.001) without difference in effectiveness of spherical correction between lasers for both groups. In Allegretto, average cylinder decreased from -3.30D to -0.55D in myopic astigmatism (p < 0.001) and from -3.84D to -0.85D in mixed astigmatism (p < 0.001). In Amaris average cylinder decreased from -3.21D to -0.43D in myopic astigmatism (p < 0.001) and from -3.66D to -0.58D in mixed astigmatism (p < 0.001). Amaris group had less residual astigmatism (myopic astigmatism p = 0.023, mixed astigmatism p < 0.001). Mean spherical aberration shifted from positive to negative in mixed astigmatism for both lasers.
CONCLUSION: Both lasers are effective in terms of UDVA, CDVA, spherical correction, and preservation of high-order aberrations. However, Amaris was more effective in cylinder correction.