medigraphic.com
Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México

2005, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2005; 79 (5)

Personalized ablation guided by Wave Front in patients with previous refractive surgery with LASIK.

Rodríguez-Sixtos HF, Cantero VMA

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 251-257
PDF size: 154.28 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Approximately, 10.5% of the patients operated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), require a retreatment within the first year. After the treatment with LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia, it increases the spherical aberration by loss of the natural negative asphericity of the cornea. Contrast sensitivity diminishes remarkably after the LASIK and its recovery takes between 3 to 6 months.
Patients and methods: Wave front guided LASIK pretreatment was made to 19 eyes of 12 patients, after 18.6 ± 11.03 months of conventional LASIK. The preoperative spherical equivalent was -1.57 ± 0.6 diopters, rank (-0.8 to -2.7). Preoperating evaluations include best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in mesopic and escotopic conditions.
Results: Best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in mesopic an escotopic conditions had statistically significant improvements after retreatment. Changes in high order aberrations were not statistically significant.
Conclusions: Guided wave front retreatment was safe and effective to improve best-corrected and uncorrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.


REFERENCES

  1. 1. Hersch PS, Fry KL, Bishop DS. Incidence and associations of retreatment after LASIK. Ophthalmology 2003; 110(4):784-754.

  2. 2. Lyle WA, Jin GJ. Retreatment after initial laser in situ keratomileuisis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26(5):650-9.

  3. 3. Zadok D, Maskaleris G, García V, Shah S y col. Outcomes of retreatment after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology 1999; 16(12):2391-4.

  4. 4. Hersh PS, Fry K, Blacker JW. Spherical aberration after laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy . Clinical results and theoretical models of etiology. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29(11):2096-2104.

  5. 5. Oshika T, Miyata K, Tokunaga T y col. Higher order wavefront aberrations of cornea and magnitude od refractive correction in laser in situ keratomilusis. Ophthalmology 2002; 109(6):1154-1158.

  6. 6. Lackner B, Pieh S, Schmidinger G, y col Glare and halo phenomena after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:444-450.

  7. 7. Pop M, Payette Y. Risk for night vision complaints after LASIK for myopia. Ophthalmology 2004; 111(1):3-10.

  8. 8. Pérez-Santoja JJ, Sakla HF, Alió JL. Contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keratomilusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24:183-189.

  9. 9. Mutyala S, McDonald MB, Scheinblum KA y col. Contrast sensitivity evaluation after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthlamology 2000; 107:1864-1867.

  10. 10. Koch DD, Kohnen T, Obstbaum SA, Rosen ES. Format for reporting refractive surgical data. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24:285-287.

  11. 11. Jay WW, Marion H, Edwards GC, Woo V. Contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis. One year follow up. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:1774-79.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com