...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical ophthalmology >Comparison of outcomes of conventional WaveLight? Allegretto Wave? and Technolas? excimer lasers in myopic laser in situ keratomileusis
【24h】

Comparison of outcomes of conventional WaveLight? Allegretto Wave? and Technolas? excimer lasers in myopic laser in situ keratomileusis

机译:常规WaveLight的结果比较? Allegretto Wave?和Technolas?近视激光原位角膜磨镶术中的准分子激光

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective: To compare the results of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia using WaveLight? Allegretto Wave? Eye-Q? and Technolas? 217z excimer lasers.Method: A retrospective, comparative case series of 442 eyes matched for age and myopia: half each were treated with Allegretto's wavefront-optimized algorithm and Technolas PlanoScan. Outcome measures were postoperative mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), cylinder, safety and efficacy indices, refractive predictability, and optical zone size selection. Refractive predictability of a subgroup treated for –2.50 to –4.0 diopter (D) was analyzed separately.Results: At mean follow-up of 80.5 days, mean logMAR UCVA, mean MRSE and mean postoperative cylinder were 0.02 ± 0.07 (range –0.12 to 0.30), 0.27 ± 0.36 D (range –1.25 to 1.50 D) and –0.33 ± 0.30 D (range 0.00 to –1.50 D) for Allegretto versus 0.02 ± 0.08 (range –0.12 to 0.40), 0.095 ± 0.47 D (range –1.25 to 1.13 D) and –0.44 ± 0.5 2 D (range 0.00 to –2.25 D) for Technolas (P = 0.98, 0.80 and 0.006). Mean safety and efficacy indices were 1.05 ± 0.13 (0.75–1.33) and 0.97 ± 0.13 (0.50–1.33) for Allegretto and 1.07 ± 0.14 (0.75–1.49) and 0.97 ± 0.17 (0.40–1.49) for Technolas (P = 0.23 and 0.69). Proportions of eyes achieving postoperative MRSE within ±1.0 D, ±0.5 D, and ±0.25 D were 98.2%, 91.9% and 75.6% for Allegretto and 99.1%, 97.8% and 72.4% for Technolas (P = 0.68, 0.20 and 0.51). Mean optical zone size selected was 6.48 ± 0.10 mm (range 6.0–6.5 mm) for Allegretto and 6.38 ± 0.19 mm (range 5.6–6.6 mm) for Technolas (P < 0.001). Of the subgroup with treatment between –2.5 and –4.0 D, 86.8% and 58.5% of eyes treated with Allegretto achieved postoperative MRSE within ±0.50 D and ±0.25 D versus 70.4% and 44.4% for Technolas (P = 0.006 and 0.057).Conclusion: No differences were seen in postoperative mean logMAR UCVA, MRSE, safety and efficacy indices between the two lasers. Allegretto produced less residual astigmatism, possibly improved refractive predictability, and required smaller optical zone selection.
机译:目的:比较使用WaveLight进行的原位角膜磨镶术治疗近视的结果? Allegretto Wave?眼睛Q?和Technolas? 217z准分子激光器。方法:回顾性比较病例系列,其中442眼适合年龄和近视:分别用Allegretto的波前优化算法和Technolas PlanoScan进行治疗。结果指标为术后最小分辨角平均对数(logMAR),未矫正视力(UCVA),明显屈光球当量(MRSE),圆柱度,安全性和有效性指数,屈光可预测性以及光学区域大小选择。结果:在平均随访80.5天时,平均logMAR UCVA,平均MRSE和平均术后柱面度为0.02±0.07(范围为–0.12至对于Allegretto,0.27±0.36 D(范围–1.25至1.50 D)和–0.33±0.30 D(范围0.00至–1.50 D)与0.02±0.08(范围–0.12至0.40),0.095±0.47 D(范围– Technolas(P = 0.98、0.80和0.006)为1.25至1.13 D)和–0.44±0.5 2 D(0.00至–2.25 D范围)。对于Allegretto,平均安全性和有效性指数分别为1.05±0.13(0.75–1.33)和0.97±0.13(0.50–1.33);对于Technolas,平均安全性和有效性指数为1.07±0.14(0.75-1.49)和0.97±0.17(0.40-1.49)(P = 0.23和0.69)。术后MRSE分别在±1.0 D,±0.5 D和±0.25 D之内的眼睛比例为Allegretto为98.2%,91.9%和75.6%,对于Technolas为99.1%,97.8%和72.4%(P = 0.68、0.20和0.51) 。对于Allegretto,选择的平均光学区域大小为6.48±0.10 mm(范围6.0–6.5 mm),对于Technolas,选择的平均光学区域大小为6.38±0.19 mm(范围5.6–6.6 mm)(P <0.001)。在–2.5到–4.0 D之间的亚组中,接受Allegretto治疗的眼睛的86.8%和58.5%的术后MRSE在±0.50 D和±0.25 D之内,而Technolas分别为70.4%和44.4%(P = 0.006和0.057)。结论:两种激光的术后平均logMAR UCVA,MRSE,安全性和有效性指标无差异。 Allegretto产生的残留像散较少,可能改善了屈光可预测性,并且需要较小的光学区域选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号