Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Results of scanning and flying spot technologies in photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for hypermetropia].

Authors: Miklós, Resch; Mónika, Popper;

[Results of scanning and flying spot technologies in photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for hypermetropia].

Abstract

To compare the results of scanning and flying spot laser beam technologies of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in eyes with hypermetropic refractive error.In Group I (n = 800) eyes were treated with scanning technology (Aesculap-Meditec MEL 60), in Subgroup I/1 (n = 482) those eyes, which had a preoperative refractive error between +1.0 and +3.5 D; in Subgroup I/2 (n = 318) the eyes between +3.75 and +6.5 D. In Group II (n = 200) eyes treated with flying spot technology (Aesculap-Meditec MEL 70 G-Scan) were evaluated; in Subgroup II/1 (n = 106) eyes between +1.0 and +3.5 D; in subgroup II/2 (n = 94) eyes between +3.75 and +7.5 D. Follow-up time was 12 months.The preoperative correction need decreased in Group I/1 from +2.88 +/- 1.34 D to +1.26 +/- 1.24 D; in Group I/2 from 64 +/- 2.96 D to +2.46 +/- 1.84 D; in Group II/1 from +2.94 +/- 1.42 D to +0.42 +/- 0.14 D and in Group II/2 from 48 +/- 2.62 D to +0.86 +/- 0.6 D 12 months after PRK. Postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was 1.0 or better in 75.7% within the eyes of Group I/1; it was 22.3% in Group I/2; 80% in Group II/1 and 64.8% in Group II/2. The percentage of the eyes within +/- 1.0 D of targeted refraction was: In Group I/1 86.1%, in Group I/2 45.3%, in Group II/1 92.4% and in Group II/2 78.7%. The best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) decreased by 2 or more Snellen lines among the eyes of Group I/1 in 12%; in Group I/2 in 21%; in Group II/1 in 2.8% and in Group II/2 in 9.6%. In Group I/1 2%, in Group II/1 3.8% of the treated eyes gained 2 or more lines of BSCVA. Among the eyes treated with the scanning model (Group I/2) a central bump-like opacity was observed in 4 eyes (1.2%); among the eyes treated with the flying spot model no similar complication occurred. The postoperative increase of intraocular pressure was observed in 7.5% in Group I/1; in 6.8% in Group I/2; in 7.0% in Group II/1; and in 6.4% in Group II/2.Flying spot technology was superior to scanning method in each treatment group, difference was greatest in eyes treated with a preoperative refractive error higher than +3.75 D. The upper limit of hypermetropic treatments has increased to +6.0 D in case of flying spot treatments from the previous +3.5 D upper limit of scanning technology.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Hyperopia, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Humans, Lasers, Excimer, Refraction, Ocular, Photorefractive Keratectomy

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!