Comparison of early outcomes of topo-guided photorefractive keratectomy for keratoconus between 2 refractive lasers

Session Details

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

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

Paper Time: 09:36

Venue: Room 16

First Author: : D.Lin CANADA

Co Author(s): :    S. Holland   K. Termote                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To evaluate early results of topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (TG-PRK) with simultaneous collagen cross-linking (CXL) between Wavelight Allegretto (WA) and Schwind Amaris (SA) refractive lasers for keratoconus (KC).

Setting:

Pacific Laser Eye Centre, Vancouver, Canada

Methods:

132 eyes underwent TG-PRK CXL using WA while 87 using SA. Trans epithelial PRK was performed with a custom Topographical Neutralization Technique (TNT). Pre and post-operative assessment of symptoms, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), manifest refraction (MR) predictability, and safety were analyzed at 1, 3, and 6 months.

Results:

95 cases of WA and 68 cases of SA have sufficient data at 6 months follow-up for analysis. 51/95 (54%) of WA and 40/68 (59%) of SA had ≥20/40 UCVA. p-value >0.05 for comparison of BSCVA change in 2 groups. 89 (94%) of WA and 62 (91%) of SA had ≥20/40 BSCVA. 50 (53%) of WA and 43 (63%) of SA had BSCVA improved. 29 (31%) of WA and 30 (44%) of SA had BSCVA improved ≥2 lines. Mean astigmatism reduction are 1.51±1.23D for WA and 1.98±1.69D for SA Mean spherical equivalent changes are -2.90±2.21D to -1.53±1.29D for WA and -2.76±2.20D to -1.28±2.01D for SA

Conclusions:

Comparison of SA TG PRK and WA TG PRK with CXL showed no significant difference in outcomes in early follow-up, half obtained ≥20/40 UCVA and improved BSCVA. (please justify as needed). SA has advantage of excellent tracking, cyclotorsion control and multiple customizable options while WA has established nomograms with studies showing efficacy and safety.

Financial Interest:

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