Custom surface ablation with Schwind Amaris 750 S vs 1050 RS with Smart Pulse Technology: intraoperative measurements and clinical outcomes

Session Details

Session Title: Photoablation, Cross-Linking and Intracorneal Ring Segment

Session Date/Time: Monday 07/09/2015 | 08:00-10:30

Paper Time: 09:30

Venue: Room 16

First Author: : P.Vinciguerra ITALY

Co Author(s): :    F. Camesasca   S. Trazza   I. Torres   R. Vinciguerra           

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To evaluate the difference in results between excimer laser refractive surgery with the Schwind 750 Hz and the 1050 Hz with Smart Pulse Technology (SPT).

Setting:

Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy

Methods:

We treated Group 1 of eyes (n= 306) with Schwind Amaris excimer laser 750S Hz pulse rate, and Group 2 (n=80) with 1050RS SPT laser. The two groups were comparable for age, sex and amount of refractive defect (Group 1 mean refraction -3.75 ± 3.31 sph, -1.07 ± 0.94 cyl; Group 2 mean refraction -4.10 ± 2.91 sph, -1.18 ± 1.04 cyl). SPT It is a pulse technology to enhance short term outcomes by reducing the residual roughness of the residual bed without compromising stability or long term outcomes.

Results:

Treatment settings were comparable: Group 1 optical zone (OZ) 7.64 ± 0.43 mm, transition zone (TZ) 1.90 ± 0.50 mm Group 2 OZ 7.57 ± 0.47 mm, TZ 1.73 ± 0.65 mm. Objective intraoperative roughness and local deviation, evaluated with topography, was 60% lower in SPT Group, similarly intraoperative visual acuity was +2,4±1,7 lines better for SPT. Six months postoperatively, there was no reduction in visual acuity, and mean refraction in Group 1 was -0.13 ± 0.30 sph, -0.14 ± 0.26 cyl , while in Group 2 it was -0.09 ± 0.28 sph, -0.08 ± 0.18 cyl (p<.05). Haze in Group 1 was 0.15 ± 0.40, in Group 2 0.19 ± 0.33 (n.s.)

Conclusions:

Amaris 1050 RS with SPT allowed a reduction in time of treatment of almost 25%, and the SPT technology provided significantly better reduction of astigmatism and a smother stromal bed after the ablation.

Financial Interest:

One of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company