First Author: M.Bohac CROATIA
Co Author(s): M. Anticic A. Biscevic N. Gabric
Purpose:
To evaluate refractive outcome between two laser platforms: Schwind Amaris 750S and Wavelight Allegretto IQ 400Hz.
Setting:
: University Eye Clinic „Svjetlost“, Zagreb, Croatia
Methods:
Total of 482 eyes were enrolled in this study. The eyes were divided into two groups and each group was divided into four subgroups. First group underwent corneal ablation with Schwind Amaris 750S and second group underwent corneal ablation with Wavelight Allegretto IQ 400Hz. Inside the groups subgroups were formed according to refraction type – myopia (200 eyes - 100 in each group), hyperopia (78 eyes – 39 in each group), compound astigmatism (164 eyes – 82 in each group) and mixed astigmatism (42 eyes -21 in each group). All flaps were made with Moria M2 microkeratome. Mean refraction in myopic group was -3,71D (ranging from -0,75D to -8,0D), in hyperopia +2,36D (ranging from +0,50D to +4,50D), in compound astigmatism group mean sphere was -2,81D (ranging from -8,0D to +4,50D) and cylinder -1,37D (ranging from -5,50D to +3,50D), while in mixed astigmatism group mean sphere was 0,29D (ranging from -1,0D to +1,25D) and cylinder -0,95D (ranging from -5,50D to +5,0D). Uncorrected and best corrected visual acuity were recorded during the three month follow up.
Results:
After the three months follow up in myopia group there was no statistically significant difference between platforms (p=0,329 Student t-test) average residual refraction for Schwind Amaris was -0,24D and for Wavelight Allegretto IQ -0,23D. Results on hyperopia also showed no statistically significant difference (p= 0,387), average residual error in first group was 0,62D and in second group 0,66D. There was statistically significant difference between two platforms for cylinder correction (p=0,007) where average residual cylinder refraction was 0,06D for Schwind Amaris and 0,29D for Wavelight Allegretto IQ. There was no statistically significant difference in results for mixed astigmatism (p=0,296). Average refraction for Schwind Amaris was 0,55D for sphere, and -0,59D for cylinder, while in Wavelight group sphere was 0,29D and cylinder 0,40D.
Conclusions:
Both laser platforms showed good and predictable results. There was no difference in performances between laser platforms form myopia and hyperopia, however Schwind Amaris gave superior results on astigmatism probably due to cyclotorsion control. Fixed ablation zone and large transition zone of Wavelight Allegretto IQ 400Hz have advantage on tissue saving with low incidence of postoperative halo and glare while Schwind Amaris 750S gives us an option to adjust ablation zone according to pupil size with better prediction of postoperative disphotopsia but with larger ablation zone deeper ablations are required.
Financial Disclosure:
No
