Search

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes from laser refractive surgery performed with the same laser with and without incorporating iris registration technology to compensate for ocular cyclotorsion., Design: Single-site, two-arm, retrospective chart review., Methods: Clinical outcomes at a single site after wavefront-optimized LASIK using the Wavelight excimer laser with and without the Vario imaging system for iris registration (IR) were evaluated. Eligible subjects were those that received on-label wavefront-optimized treatment of myopia with astigmatism >1.5 D. Measures of interest were the amount of residual refractive cylinder after surgery, the refractive error, and the best-corrected (BCVA) and uncorrected (UCVA) visual acuities, with a target follow-up of around 90 days., Results: A total of 112 eligible eyes that were treated with IR and 126 similar eyes treated without IR (NO IR) were included. The refractive sphere and spherical equivalent refractions were statistically significantly different between groups (p < 0.05), but the mean differences were <0.1 D in both cases. Refractive cylinder averaged around 0.12 D and was not statistically significantly different between groups. The number of eyes with residual cylinder >0.50 D was higher in the NO IR group vs the IR group (6% vs 1%, respectively, p = 0.04). The mean logMAR UCVA and BCVA were statistically significantly better in the IR group, with a difference of 1.5 letters for UCVA and 1.0 letters for BCVA (p < 0.001 for both). Significantly more eyes in the IR group had a UCVA (p = 0.01) and a BCVA of 20/15 or better (p = 0.003). Overall, 96% of eyes in the IR group and 91% of eyes in the NO IR group had uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better., Conclusion: Iris registration with the VARIO imaging device demonstrably reduced the overall variability in clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Dr Phillip B Brunson reports grants from Alcon, during the conduct of the study; a consultant for Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Eyevance Pharmaceuticals, and Allergan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr Paul Michael Mann and Dr Paul M Mann II report grants from Alcon, during the conduct of the study. Dr Richard Potvin reports personal fees from Alcon and Carl Zeiss Meditec, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2020 Brunson et al.)

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes from topography-guided laser refractive surgery based on new planning software to outcomes based on using the manifest refraction., Design: Single site, two-arm, retrospective chart review., Methods: Clinical outcomes at a single site after topography-guided LASIK using the Wavelight excimer laser were evaluated, with a target postoperative follow-up time of 90 days. Eligible eyes were those that received on-label topography-guided treatment of myopia or myopic astigmatism with correction based on either the manifest refraction or results from the Phorcides Analytical Engine (PAE). Measures analyzed included the uncorrected (UDVA) and best-corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, the magnitude of refractive cylinder after surgery, the refractive error and changes from preoperative CDVA., Results: The study included 115 eyes in the PAE group and 133 eyes in the Manifest group. Significantly more eyes in the PAE group had a CDVA of 20/15 or better (p = 0.05) and a UDVA of 20/15 or better (p = 0.05). Significantly more eyes in the Manifest group had a UDVA of 20/25 or worse (13/133 vs 1/115 in the PAE group, p = 0.002). There were significantly more eyes in the PAE group with no postoperative refractive cylinder (90% vs 77% in the Manifest group, p = 0.004). No eye in either group had a postoperative CDVA a line or worse than their preoperative CDVA. Three eyes in the Manifest group and no PAE eyes have had subsequent enhancement surgery., Conclusion: Mean results for postoperative refractive astigmatism, CDVA and UDVA were similar between the groups, but the clinical outcomes for the PAE group appeared less variable, with more eyes having no refractive astigmatism and a higher percentage of eyes having 20/15 or better CDVA and UCVA. The objective nature of the PAE is an advantage., Competing Interests: Richard Potvin is a consultant to Alcon and Carl Zeiss Meditec. Phillip Brunson is a consultant to Allergan Pharmaceuticals, Eyevance Pharmaceuticals and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Paul Michael Mann and Paul M Mann II report grants from Alcon, during the conduct of the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2020 Brunson et al.)