Induced astigmatism after photorefractive keratectomy

Comparison of the Clinical Effectiveness of Correcting Different Types of Astigmatism with Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

Few studies have reported the differential outcomes of Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) on myopic astigmatism. Given this, we examined the effectiveness of SMILE for up to one year, comparing with-the-rule (WTR), against-the-rule (ATR), and oblique astigmatism, conducting a retrospective review of patients who underwent correction of myopic astigmatism using the 500-kHz VisuMax femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec) at two refractive clinics in Poland between 2016-2017. Patients were aged ≥21 with stable refractive errors between -0.5 and -10.0 diopter (D) with astigmatism up to 5D. The mean age of the 209 patients (355 eyes) available was 32 years; 58.4% were female. Of these, 247 had WTR, 62 oblique, and 46 ATR astigmatism. The mean pre-operative spherical equivalent (SE) was -5.4 ± 2.57D and the cylinder -1.7 ± 1.0D. The mean SE for WTR reduced from -5.60 ± 2.37D to -0.31 ± 0.67D at 2 months and -0.38 ± 0.70D at 12 months; the mean cylinder improved from -1.90 ± 1.10D to -0.31 ± 0.39D and -0.36 ± 0.43D, respectively. Eyes with oblique astigmatism also improved from a mean SE of -5.8 ± 3.4 D to -0.82 ± 1.50D and -0.69 ± 1.15D and a cylinder of -1.4 ± 0.73D to -0.17 ± 0.33D at 2 months and -0.1 ± 0.32D at 12. For ATR, the mean SE improved from -4.0 ± 1.8D to -0.08 ± 0.22D and -0.04 ± 0.12D; and the mean cylinder from -1.25 ± 0.53 to -0.02 ± 0.09D -0.08 ± 0.21D at 2 and 12 months, respectively. There were statistically significant improvements in SE, manifest sphere and cylinder refraction, and UDVA and CDVA scores for each cylinder type at 2 months with ATR cylinders having better outcomes. Although missing data limited interpretation at one year, differences were maintained. The magnitude of error calculations suggests that WTR was more prone to under-correction, particularly for high astigmatism (>1.5D). SMILE for myopic astigmatism reliably corrects SE, irrespective of the subtype of astigmatism.

Induced De Novo Astigmatism After Hyperopic LASIK Versus Myopic LASIK Surgery in Nonastigmatic Eyes

PURPOSE

To compare the astigmatism induced surgically (SIA) by spherical hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis (H-LASIK) versus myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (M-LASIK) in nonastigmatic eyes.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent LASIK surgery between 2005 and 2014 at the Care-Vision Laser Center, Israel. We calculated the mean absolute SIA and performed risk factor analysis for induced astigmatism. Differences between H-LASIK and M-LASIK were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eyes of 3877 patients who underwent M-LASIK and of 549 patients who underwent H-LASIK were nonastigmatic preoperatively and received a nonastigmatic treatment. Three months after surgery, hyperopic treatment induced more SIA (0.49 ± 0.48 D) than did myopic treatment (0.36 ± 0.4 D) (P < 0.001). In the H-LASIK group, the risk factors for induced astigmatism of >0.5 D were a higher preoperative refractive error (P = 0.003) and larger optical zone (7 vs. 6 mm). In the M-LASIK group, eyes with SIA >0.5 D tended to have steeper corneas preoperatively (43.8 ± 1.5 vs. 43.6 ± 1.4 D; P = 0.001), a higher spherical equivalent (-3.43 ± 1.53 Vs. -3.07 ± 1.45 P < 0.001), and smaller treatment zones (6 vs. 7 mm). In H-LASIK, the mean induced astigmatic axis was at 74.6 degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a consistent trend toward more SIA in H-LASIK and in higher refractive error correction. In H-LASIK larger optical zones induce more SIA and in M-LASIK smaller ones caused it.

LASIK versus photorefractive keratectomy for high myopic (> 3 diopter) astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy, safety, predictability, and vector analysis indices of LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of high cylinder of greater than 3 diopters (D) in myopic eyes.

METHODS

The efficacy, safety, and predictability of LASIK or PRK performed in 114 consecutive randomly selected myopic eyes with an astigmatism of greater than 3 D were retrospectively analyzed at the 2- to 6-month follow-up visits. Vector analysis of the cylindrical correction was compared between the treatment groups.

RESULTS

A total of 57 eyes receiving PRK and 57 eyes receiving LASIK of 114 refractive surgery candidates were enrolled in the study. No statistically significant difference in efficacy [efficacy index = 0.76 (±0.32) for PRK vs 0.74 (±0.19) for LASIK (P = .82)], safety [safety index = 1.10 (±0.26) for PRK vs 1.01 (±0.17) for LASIK (P = .121)], or predictability [achieved astigmatism < 1 D in 39% of PRK- and 54% of LASIK-treated eyes, and < 2 D in 88% of PRK- and 89% of LASIK-treated eyes (P = .218)] was demonstrated. Using Alpins vector analysis, the surgically induced astigmatism and difference vector were not significantly different between the surgery methods, whereas the correction index showed a slight and significant advantage of LASIK over PRK (1.25 for PRK and 1.06 for LASIK, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

LASIK and PRK are comparably safe, effective, and predictable procedures for excimer laser correction of high astigmatism of greater than 3 D in myopic eyes. Predictability of the correction of the cylindrical component is lower than that of the spherical equivalent.

Astigmatism induced by conventional spherical ablation after PRK and LASIK in myopia with astigmatism < 1.00 D

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate surgically-induced astigmatism after spherical ablation in photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia with astigmatism < 1.00 D.

METHODS

The charts of patients undergoing spherical PRK or LASIK for the correction of myopia with minimal astigmatism of <1.00 D from 2002 to 2012 at the John A Moran Eye Center in Salt Lake City, UT, were retrospectively reviewed. Astigmatism was measured by manifest refraction. The final astigmatic refractive outcome at 6 months postoperatively was compared with the initial refraction by Alpins vector analysis.

RESULTS

For PRK, average cylinder increased from 0.39 ± 0.25 (0.00-0.75) preoperatively to 0.55 ± 0.48 (0.00-1.75) postoperatively (P = 0.014), compared with an increase in LASIK eyes from 0.40 ± 0.27 (0.00-0.75) preoperatively to 0.52 ± 0.45 (0.00-2.00) postoperatively (P = 0.041). PRK eyes experienced an absolute value change in cylinder of 0.41 ± 0.32 (0.00-1.50) and LASIK eyes experienced a change of 0.41 ± 0.31 (0.00-1.50, P = 0.955). Mean surgically-induced astigmatism was 0.59 ± 0.35 (0.00-1.70) in PRK eyes, with an increase in surgically-induced astigmatism of 0.44 D for each additional 1.00 D of preoperative cylinder; in LASIK eyes, mean surgically-induced astigmatism was 0.55 ± 0.32 (0.00-1.80, P = 0.482), with an increase in surgically-induced astigmatism of 0.29 D for each 1.00 D of preoperative cylinder.

CONCLUSION

Spherical ablation can induce substantial astigmatism even in eyes with less than one diopter of preoperative astigmatism in both PRK and LASIK. No significant difference in the magnitude of surgically-induced astigmatism was found between eyes treated with PRK and LASIK, although surgically-induced astigmatism was found to increase with greater levels of preoperative astigmatism in both PRK and LASIK.

Risk factors for postoperative cylindrical prediction error after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and myopic astigmatism

PURPOSE

To study the risk factors for the occurrence of cylindrical prediction error (PE) after laser in situkeratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia and myopic astigmatism.

METHODS

The study was a nested case-control study. Five hundred eyes of 252 consecutive patients who underwent LASIK for myopia and myopic astigmatism on the Chiron Technolas 217C laser and completed 6 months of follow-up. There were 435 controls and 65 cases based on the postoperative refractive cylindrical PE. The probable risk factors studied included preoperative sphere and cylinder, keratometry, pachymetry, suction ring used, flap thickness, hinge centeration, optic zone, ablation depth, and intraoperative complications.

RESULTS

By univariate analysis, the cylindrical PE was found to be associated with preoperative spherical equivalent higher than -6 D (chi(2)=10.83; P=0.001), preoperative sphere higher than -6 D (chi(2)=6.15, P=0.013), preoperative cylinder more than -0.75 D (chi(2)=6.61; P-value=0.010), and an optic zone less than 5.5 mm (chi(2)=19.3; P=0.001). Risk factors for postoperative astigmatism by stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis were an optic zone of less than 5.5 mm with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.81 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.62-4.86) and preoperative cylinder more than -0.75 D with an OR of 1.60 (95% CI=0.92-2.77).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative astigmatism (as indicated by the cylindrical PE) is more likely to occur with an optic zone of less than 5.5 mm and a higher preoperative cylindrical error.

Correlation of visual and refractive outcomes between eyes after same-session bilateral laser in situ keratomileusis surgery

PURPOSE

To determine whether between-eye refractive and visual outcomes after same-session laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery are correlated, and to determine whether suboptimal visual and refractive outcomes in one eye are predictive of poor results in the fellow eye.

DESIGN

Observational case series.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review. A total of 484 eyes of 242 patients met inclusion criteria of having undergone same-day LASIK surgery and having 3-month refractive and visual acuity outcomes. Statistical comparisons of outcomes were performed, including between-eye Pearson correlation analysis and logistic regression models for predicting second-eye outcome. Main outcome measures were 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month uncorrected visual acuity and manifest refraction.

RESULTS

Refractive outcomes at 1, 3, and 6 months between first (right) and second eyes were not found to be significantly different. No difference in uncorrected or best spectacle-corrected visual acuity was observed between first and second eyes Refractive outcomes of spherical equivalent, sphere, and cylinder and visual outcomes of uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity were highly correlated between the two eyes. Analysis of cases with suboptimal outcomes (> or =1 diopter from intended correction or uncorrected acuity equal to or worse than 20/40) suggests that a poor refractive or visual outcome in the first eye increases the risk of a poor outcome in the second eye by approximately 20-fold.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrospective analysis of refractive and visual outcomes from patients undergoing same-session bilateral LASIK demonstrates a high correlation of refractive and visual outcome between the eyes.

Astigmatic changes after excimer laser refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the astigmatic changes induced by spherical and elliptical excimer laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

SETTING

University-based refractive surgery practice.

METHODS

Three-month refractive data from 317 eyes of consecutive patients having spherical PRK, astigmatic PRK (A-PRK), spherical LASIK, and astigmatic LASIK (A-LASIK) by a single surgeon (J.S.P.) using VISX 2020B and Star lasers over 2 years were studied for astigmatic changes resulting from the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

At 3 months, the mean change in absolute astigmatism was +0.15 diopter (D) and -0.07 D in the spherical PRK and LASIK groups, respectively. Photorefractive keratectomy tended to induce with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism, while LASIK was astigmatically neutral. As expected, the eyes treated with A-PRK and A-LASIK achieved a greater reduction in absolute astigmatism (-1.02 D and -1.28 D, respectively) than those treated with spherical PRK and LASIK. The qualitative nature of the astigmatic change was different between flap-based and PRK-based procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Spherical PRK is more likely than spherical LASIK to induce astigmatism, with a tendency toward WTR astigmatism. The eyes treated with spherical LASIK had no preponderant change in the direction of astigmatic magnitude or axis. Astigmatic PRK and LASIK effectively reduced astigmatism along the preoperative axis; A-LASIK tended to induce a random resultant axis in most patients.

Corneal astigmatic change after photorefractive keratectomy and photoastigmatic refractive keratectomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the efficacy, safety, predictability, and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and photoastigmatic refractive keratectomy (PARK).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 70 eyes were treated for myopia and 70 eyes were treated for myopic astigmatism. Refraction, corneal topography, slitlamp findings, and visual acuity in the 2 groups at 1, 3, and 6 months were evaluated and compared. Vector analysis was performed to determine the SIA in both groups.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative spherical equivalent at the glasses plane in the PRK and PARK groups was -6.06 diopters (D) and -7.18 D, respectively. At 6 months, the mean reduction in astigmatism in the PARK group was 61.0%. Predictability was within +/-1.0 D in 85.2% of eyes in the PRK group and 62.5% in the PARK group. An uncorrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better was achieved in 91.8% and 83.9% of eyes, respectively. The mean SIA was 0.64 D in the PRK group, with a general with-the-rule axis shift. The results of vector analysis were more favorable when calculated from refractive values than from Sim-K corneal topography values. The mean astigmatism correction index and index of success calculated from refractive data were 0.75 and 0.38 in the PARK group. The mean magnitude and angle of error were 0.22 +/- 0.52 D and -2.13 +/- 24.41 degrees, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Photorefractive keratectomy and PARK were effective and safe procedures for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. However, SIA occurred with spherical myopic treatments. This small SIA may be a confounding factor in low astigmatic treatments.

Laser in situ keratomileusis for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, predictability, and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

METHODS

This retrospective study comprised 69 eyes that had LASIK to correct myopia and 74 eyes that had LASIK to correct myopic astigmatism. The excimer laser keratectomy was performed using a Summit Apex Plus machine. Refraction, visual acuity, and computerized corneal videokeratography data from the preoperative and postoperative examinations were collected. The astigmatic change was calculated by the Alpins vector analysis method.

RESULTS

The preoperative spherical equivalent at the glasses plane in the myopia and myopic astigmatism groups was -8.08 diopters (D) and -9.73 D, respectively. At 6 months, the spherical equivalent and residual corneal astigmatism were -0.25 D and 0.85 D, respectively, in the myopia group and -0.71 D and 0.82 D, respectively, in the myopic astigmatism group. In the myopia group, 88% of eyes were within +/-1.0 D of the intended myopia correction and in the myopic astigmatism group, 85% were within +/-1.0 D of the targeted spherical equivalent and 90% were within +/-1.0 D of the intended astigmatism correction. The uncorrected visual acuity was 20/40 or better in 94.1% of eyes in the myopia group and 92.5% of eyes in the myopic astigmatism group. The SIA magnitude was 0.66 D with the axis randomly distributed in the myopia group. The mean astigmatism correction index was 0.97, the mean magnitude of error was 0.13 D +/- 0.62 (SD), and the mean angle of error was -3.70 +/- 13.73 degrees in the myopic astigmatism group.

CONCLUSION

Laser in situ keratomileusis had similar predictability, safety, and efficacy in the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism. The astigmatism correction was effective, but the results suggest that subjective astigmatism of less than 1.0 D need not be treated with the Summit Apex Plus laser.