» Articles » PMID: 16995546

Measurement of Contrast Sensitivity and Glare Under Mesopic and Photopic Conditions Following Wavefront-guided and Conventional LASIK Surgery

Overview
Journal J Refract Surg
Date 2006 Sep 26
PMID 16995546
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To compare contrast and glare vision in a prospective study of eyes treated using conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. The reproducibility of a glaremeter device used to quantitatively measure glare and halo was also determined.

Methods: Ninety-two eyes of 46 patients underwent conventional LASIK surgery and 104 eyes of 52 patients underwent wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. Visual acuity, glare disability measured using a glaremeter, and contrast sensitivity assessed using a Pelli-Robson chart were measured monthly for 6 months postoperatively. Glaremeter testing was performed under both mesopic (5.4 +/- 0.4 cd/m2) and photopic (78.3 +/- 4.4 cd/m2) conditions. To evaluate the reproducibility of the glaremeter, 36 eyes of 18 nonoperated myopic patients were tested.

Results: The coefficient of variation and the reliability coefficient for the glare test were 13.6% and 95.2%, respectively. The glaremeter showed that glare disability under mesopic conditions differed between conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes over 6-month follow-up (907.5 +/- 491.5 vs 986.1 +/- 448.0 pixels preoperatively and 1717.1 +/- 521.2 vs 1407.8 +/- 411.3 pixels at 6 months, P<.0001). At 6 months, contrast sensitivity log values were 1.62 +/- 0.31 and 1.78 +/- 0.34 for conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes, respectively (P=.010). The visual complaint score was lower in the wavefront-guided LASIK group (P=.0116).

Conclusions: Compared to conventional ablation, wavefront-guided ablation provided superior outcomes in terms of postoperative glare under mesopic conditions, subjective complaints, and contrast sensitivity. In addition, it appears the glaremeter can be used for clinical quantitative evaluation of glare and halo.

Citing Articles

Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors.

Li S, Kang M, Wang N, Abariga S Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 12:CD012687.

PMID: 33336797 PMC: 8094180. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012687.pub2.


Outcome comparison between wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hamam K, Gbreel M, Elsheikh R, Benmelouka A, Ouerdane Y, Hassan A Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020; 68(12):2691-2698.

PMID: 33229644 PMC: 7856933. DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2921_20.


Relation of Corneal Astigmatism with Various Corneal Image Quality Parameters in a Large Cohort of Naïve Corneas.

Yousif M, Elkitkat R, Alaarag N, Shams A, Gharieb H Clin Ophthalmol. 2020; 14:2203-2210.

PMID: 32801631 PMC: 7414923. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S264706.


Refractive and Aberration Outcomes after Customized Photorefractive Keratectomy in Comparison with Customized Femtosecond Laser.

Sajjadi V, Ghoreishi M, Jafarzadehpour E Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2015; 4(4):136-141.

PMID: 27800501 PMC: 5087100.


A prospective comparison of phakic collamer lenses and wavefront-optimized laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis for correction of myopia.

Parkhurst G Clin Ophthalmol. 2016; 10:1209-15.

PMID: 27418804 PMC: 4935102. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S106120.