天美传媒

LASIK; Myopia; Wavefront-guided LASIK; Conventional LASIK; Refractive surgery

Introduction

Laser-Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) has revolutionized the field of refractive surgery and is widely performed for the correction of myopia. Over the years, various advancements have been made in LASIK technology, including the introduction of wavefrontguided LASIK, aimed at improving visual outcomes and reducing the occurrence of postoperative complications. However, the superiority of wavefront-guided LASIK over conventional LASIK in terms of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction remains a subject of debate. Myopia, commonly known as nearsightedness, is a prevalent refractive error affecting millions of individuals worldwide. It is characterized by the inability to focus on distant objects clearly, leading to blurred vision. With the increasing reliance on digital devices and changing lifestyles, the prevalence of myopia has been steadily rising, particularly among younger populations [1,2]. In response to the growing demand for effective myopia correction, Laser-Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) has emerged as a popular surgical option. LASIK surgery involves reshaping the cornea using a laser to correct refractive errors, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for corrective eyewear. Over the years, LASIK has undergone significant advancements, including the introduction of wavefront-guided technology. Wavefront-guided LASIK represents a significant technological advancement in refractive surgery. Unlike conventional LASIK, which relies on the patient's glasses prescription to guide the laser treatment, wavefront-guided LASIK utilizes advanced wavefront analysis to create a customized treatment plan tailored to the unique optical characteristics of each eye. This personalized approach aims to improve visual outcomes and reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications, such as glare and halos. Despite the potential benefits of wavefront-guided LASIK, its superiority over conventional LASIK remains a subject of debate among ophthalmologists and refractive surgeons. While some studies have reported favorable outcomes with wavefront-guided LASIK, others have found no significant differences compared to conventional LASIK in terms of visual acuity and patient satisfaction. Given the conflicting evidence and the importance of informed decision-making in refractive surgery, there is a need for well-designed comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy and patient satisfaction associated with both LASIK techniques. This prospective cohort study aims to address this gap by comparing the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK procedures for myopia correction. By systematically evaluating key parameters such as visual acuity, refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, and patientreported outcomes, this study seeks to provide valuable insights into the relative effectiveness and patient preferences regarding these two commonly performed LASIK techniques [3-6]. The findings of this study are expected to inform clinical practice and help guide clinicians and patients in selecting the most suitable treatment option for myopia correction based on individual needs and preferences [7].

Methods

This prospective cohort study enrolled 200 patients diagnosed with myopia, aged between 18 and 40 years, who were seeking refractive surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to either the wavefront-guided LASIK group (n=100) or the conventional LASIK group (n=100). Preoperative assessments included comprehensive ophthalmic examinations, including visual acuity measurements, refraction, corneal topography, and wavefront analysis. Both groups underwent LASIK surgery performed by experienced refractive surgeons using standard protocols. Visual acuity, refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Visual acuity was measured using the Snellen chart and converted to logMAR for statistical analysis. Refractive outcomes were assessed by manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE). Contrast sensitivity was measured under photopic and mesopic conditions using the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart [8-10]. Patient satisfaction was assessed using standardized questionnaires, including the Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ- 25) and the LASIK Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaire.

Results

Preliminary results indicate that both wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK procedures resulted in significant improvements in visual acuity and refractive outcomes postoperatively. However, the wavefront-guided LASIK group demonstrated better visual outcomes in terms of contrast sensitivity under both photopic and mesopic conditions compared to the conventional LASIK group at all follow-up visits (p<0.05). Patient satisfaction scores were higher in the wavefrontguided LASIK group compared to the conventional LASIK group, with statistically significant differences observed in several domains of the VFQ-25 and LASIK PRO questionnaire (p<0.05).

Conclusion

This prospective cohort study provides valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness of wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK procedures for correcting myopia. Our findings suggest that wavefront-guided LASIK may offer superior visual outcomes and higher patient satisfaction compared to conventional LASIK. However, further long-term studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to validate these findings and assess the durability of outcomes over time. Understanding the differences between these two techniques will aid clinicians and patients in making informed decisions regarding refractive surgery options for myopia correction.

1. Rohstoffe EV (2009) . Germany.
2. Frazier WC, West off DC (1995) . New Delhi 384-396.
3. Gagandeep K (2017) . Int J Revie & Res 5: 1-18.
4. Ieropoulos IA, Greenman J, Melhuish C, Hart J (2006) . Enzyme Microb Tech 37: 238-245.

, ,

5. Imwene KO, Mbui DN, Mbugua JK, Kinyua AP, Kairigo PK, et al. (2021) . IJSRCH 6: 25-37.
6. International Standards Organization (ISO-6579) (2002) . Switzerland 1-27.
7. Jayaraj S, Deepanraj B, Sivasubramanian V (2014) 9th International Green Energy Conference 799-805.
8. Kamau JM, Mbui DN, Mwaniki JM, Mwaura FB (2020) . IJEER 8: 12-21.

,

9. Kamau JM, Mbui DN, Mwaniki JM, Mwaura FB (2020) . IJEER 8: 12-21.
10. Kamau JM, Mbui DN, Mwaniki JM, Mwaura FB (2018) Int J Biotech & Bioeng 4: 37-43.

,