Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis: Contralateral comparative study

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized treatment in fellow eyes of patients having laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.

Setting

Medical and Vision Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu, India.

Methods

This prospective comparative study comprised 27 patients who had wavefront-guided LASIK in 1 eye and wavefront-optimized LASIK in the fellow eye. The Hansatome (Bausch & Lomb) was used to create a superior-hinged flap and the Allegretto laser (WaveLight Laser Technologie AG), for photoablation. The Allegretto wave analyzer was used to measure ocular wavefront aberrations and the Functional Acuity Contrast Test chart, to measure contrast sensitivity before and 1 month after LASIK. The refractive and visual outcomes and the changes in aberrations and contrast sensitivity were compared between the 2 treatment modalities.

Results

One month postoperatively, 92% of eyes in the wavefront-guided group and 85% in the wavefront-optimized group had uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better; 93% and 89%, respectively, had a postoperative spherical equivalent refraction of ±0.50 diopter. The differences between groups were not statistically significant. Wavefront-guided LASIK induced less change in 18 of 22 higher-order Zernike terms than wavefront-optimized LASIK, with the change in positive spherical aberration the only statistically significant one (P = .01). Contrast sensitivity improved at the low and middle spatial frequencies (not statistically significant) and worsened significantly at high spatial frequencies after wavefront-guided LASIK; there was a statistically significant worsening at all spatial frequencies after wavefront-optimized LASIK.

Conclusion

Although both wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK gave excellent refractive correction results, the former induced less higher-order aberrations and was associated with better contrast sensitivity.