Comparison of the 1st Generation and 3rd Generation Wavefront-Guided LASIK for the Treatment of Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism

Overview

Journal Clin Ophthalmol

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2023 Nov 29

PMID 38026600

Authors

Stephen J Hannan

David Teenan

Jan A Venter

Keith A Hettinger

Colin W Berry

Noelle C Hannan

Huba J Kiss

Dasi Raju

Julie M Schallhorn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare refractive, visual, and patient-reported outcomes associated with a 1st generation wavefront-guided (WFG) treatment with those associated with a 3rd generation WFG treatment.

Patients And Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia/myopic astigmatism. Two random stratified samples of patients who underwent either 1stgeneration (WaveScan, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA) or 3rd generation (iDesign 2.0, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA) treatment matched on preoperative refraction were compared (4290 eyes of 2145 patients in each group). One-month postoperative visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. Refractive and monocular visual acuity analyses were performed using one random eye of each patient.

Results: The percentage of eyes achieving 20/20 or better uncorrected vision was 91.3% (1958/2145) in the 1st generation group and 95.9% (2056/2145) in the 3rd generation group (p<0.01). Binocularly, the percentage of patients with 20/20 or better UDVA was 97.0% (2080/2145) and 99.2% (2127/2145) in the 1st and 3rd generation groups, respectively (p<0.01). The mean postoperative MSE was -0.01 ± 0.33 D in the 1st generation group and +0.19 ± 0.33 D in the 3rd generation group (p<0.01). Postoperative refractive astigmatism had a mean value of -0.20 ± 0.26 D and -0.18 ± 0.24 D in the 1st and 3rd generation groups, respectively (p<0.01). The mean correction index of refractive astigmatism was 1.09 ± 0.53 in the 1st generation group and 1.02 ± 0.38 in the 3rd generation group, p<0.01. The overall percentage of patients satisfied with vision was 92.8% (1991/2145 patients) in the 1st generation group and 97.3% (2087/2145 patients) in the 3rd generation group (p<0.01).

Conclusion: For the majority of postoperative variables, there were significant differences between 1st and 3rd generation treatments. The 3rd generation treatments had better visual acuity outcomes and higher patient satisfaction.

References

Jabbur N, Kraff C . Wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis using the WaveScan system for correction of low to moderate myopia with astigmatism: 6-month results in 277 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31(8):1493-501. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.12.050. View

Bullimore M, Spooner G, Sluyterman G, Dishler J . Correction of low levels of astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41(8):1641-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.12.060. View

Schallhorn S, Venter J, Hannan S, Hettinger K . Outcomes of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis using a new-generation Hartmann-Shack aberrometer in patients with high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41(9):1810-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.10.007. View

Partal A, Manche E . CustomVue laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and myopic astigmatism using the Visx S4 excimer laser: Efficacy, predictability, and safety. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32(3):475-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.12.128. View

Maloney R, Kraff C, Coleman S . Wavefront-guided myopic laser in situ keratomileusis with a high-resolution Hartmann-Shack aberrometer and a new nomogram. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020; 47(7):847-854. DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000539. View

Smadja D, Santhiago M, Tellouck J, De Castro T, Lecomte F, Mello G . Safety and efficacy of wavefront-guided myopic laser in situ keratomileusis using a new wavefront sensor technology: first 100 cases. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41(8):1588-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.11.053. View

Schallhorn J, Seifert S, Schallhorn S . SMILE, Topography-Guided LASIK, and Wavefront-Guided LASIK: Review of Clinical Outcomes in Premarket Approval FDA Studies. J Refract Surg. 2019; 35(11):690-698. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20190930-02. View

Eydelman M, Drum B, Holladay J, Hilmantel G, Kezirian G, Durrie D . Standardized analyses of correction of astigmatism by laser systems that reshape the cornea. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22(1):81-95. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20060101-16. View

Smadja D, De Castro T, Tellouck L, Tellouck J, Lecomte F, Touboul D . Wavefront analysis after wavefront-guided myopic LASIK using a new generation aberrometer. J Refract Surg. 2014; 30(9):610-5. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20140815-01. View

10.

Waring 3rd G, Reinstein D, Dupps Jr W, Kohnen T, Mamalis N, Rosen E . Standardized graphs and terms for refractive surgery results. J Refract Surg. 2011; 27(1):7-9. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20101116-01. View

11.

Prakash G, Srivastava D, Suhail M . Femtosecond Laser-assisted Wavefront-guided LASIK Using a Newer Generation Aberrometer: 1-Year Results. J Refract Surg. 2015; 31(9):600-6. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20150820-05. View

12.

Moussa S, Dexl A, Krall E, Dietrich M, Arlt E, Grabner G . Comparison of short-term refractive surgery outcomes after wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided LASIK. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2016; 26(6):529-535. DOI: 10.5301/ejo.5000882. View

13.

Kim A, Chuck R . Wavefront-guided customized corneal ablation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008; 19(4):314-20. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e328302ccae. View

14.

Jung J, Chung B, Han S, Kim E, Seo K, Kim T . Comparison of Measurements and Clinical Outcomes After Wavefront-Guided LASEK Between iDesign and WaveScan. J Refract Surg. 2015; 31(6):398-405. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20150521-06. View

15.

Duran J, Gutierrez E, Atienza R, Pinero D . Vector analysis of astigmatic changes and optical quality outcomes after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis using a high-resolution aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018; 43(12):1515-1522. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.020. View

16.

Manche E, Roe J . Recent advances in wavefront-guided LASIK. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018; 29(4):286-291. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000488. View

17.

Reinstein D, Archer T, Randleman J . JRS standard for reporting astigmatism outcomes of refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2014; 30(10):654-9. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20140903-01. View

18.

Moshirfar M, J Shah T, Skanchy D, Linn S, Kang P, Durrie D . Comparison and analysis of FDA reported visual outcomes of the three latest platforms for LASIK: wavefront guided Visx iDesign, topography guided WaveLight Allegro Contoura, and topography guided Nidek EC-5000 CATz. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017; 11:135-147. PMC: 5221655. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S115270. View

19.

Schallhorn S, Venter J, Hannan S, Hettinger K . Clinical outcomes of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis to treat moderate-to-high astigmatism. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015; 9:1291-8. PMC: 4508064. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S87887. View

20.

Schallhorn S, Brown M, Venter J, Teenan D, Hettinger K, Yamamoto H . Early clinical outcomes of wavefront-guided myopic LASIK treatments using a new-generation hartmann-shack aberrometer. J Refract Surg. 2013; 30(1):14-21. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20131029-02. View