Comparison of simulated keratometric changes following wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis

Figures & data

Table 1 Pre-op refractive measures

Ablation profile	Pre-op SE	Pre-op cyl	Pre-op K
WFG LASIK (n = 51)	−4.56 ± 1.91 (−1.23 to −8.63)	0.82 ± 0.72 (0–2.81)	43.8 ± 0.92 (42.37–46.24)
WFO LASIK (n = 51)	−4.61 ± 1.66 (−1.23 to −7.71) p = 0.8729	0.79 ± 0.80 (0–2.90) p = 0.5049	43.7 ± 0.98 (41.62–45.92) p = 0.7518

Notes: cyl, cylindrical error; K, simulated keratometry.

Abbreviations: LASIK, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis; pre-op, pre-operative; SE, spherical equivalent; WFG, wavefront-guided; WFO, wavefront-optimized.

Figure 1 Linear regression of the change in simulated K vs the change in SE induced by WFG LASIK (A) and by WFO LASIK (B).

Abbreviations: K, keratometry; LASIK, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis; SE, spherical equivalent; WFG, wavefront-guided; WFO, wavefront-optimized; Wlight, wavelight.

Table 2 Estimation results for the model (ΔK = α + β [ΔSE])

Parameter	Estimate	p-value	95% confidence interval
			Lower limit	Upper limit
WFG LASIK
A	0.17	0.399	−0.23	0.57
B	0.85	<0.0001	0.76	0.93
R^Citation2	0.89
Observations (n)	51
WFO LASIK
A	0.01	0.9476	−0.42	0.45
B	0.83	<0.0001	0.73	0.93
R^Citation2	0.86
Observations (n)	51
Test of equality
F-statistica for α	2.54	0.08
F-statistic for β	4.42	0.04

Notes: α, constant in the linear regression; β, slope in the linear regression; and R², square of the correlation coefficient in the linear regression.

a For equality of the coefficients across the two ablation profiles.

Abbreviations: LASIK, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis; WFG, wavefront-guided; WFO, wavefront-optimized.

Figure 2 Ratio of change in simulated K to change in SE plotted by the amount of refractive correction for WFG LASIK (A) and WFO LASIK (B).

Abbreviations: K, keratometry; LASIK, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis; SE, spherical equivalent; WFG, wavefront-guided; WFO, wavefront-optimized; Wlight, wavelight.

Table 3 Comparison of the ratio of change in K to change in SE by the amount of refractive correction

Parameter	Change in SEa (D)
	WFG LASIK		WFO LASIK
	<4.00	>4.00	<4.00	<4.00
Ratio
Mean	0.91	0.88	0.85	0.83
SD	0.22	0.09	0.23	0.10
Mean pre-op K, D (range)	43.5 (42.4–45.9)	44.0 (42.5–45.1)	43.6 (41.6–45.9)	43.8 (42.2–45.9)
Observations, n	24	28	21	31
p-value (ratio)	0.5591		0.6311
p-value (pre-op K)	0.08		0.3365

Note:

a Induced by LASIK.

Abbreviations: LASIK, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis; pre-op, pre-operative; SE, spherical equivalent; WFG, wavefront-guided; WFO, wavefront-optimized.

Table 4 Comparisons of the ratio of change in K to change in SE between WFG LASIK and WFO LASIK

Parameter	Full sample		Change in SE (D)a
	WFG	WFO	>2.00		>3.00		>4.00
			WFG	WFO	WFG	WFO	WFG	WFO
Ratio
Mean	0.89	0.84	0.88	0.83	0.89	0.83	0.88	0.83
SD	0.16	0.16	0.16	0.16	0.13	0.12	0.09	0.10
Observations	51	51	45	47	38	40	28	31
p-value	0.0913		0.1184		0.0323		0.0466

Note:

a Induced by LASIK.

Abbreviations: LASIK, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis; SE, spherical equivalent; WFG, wavefront-guided; WFO, wavefront-optimized.

LengCFeizVModjtahediBMoshirfarMComparison of simulated keratometric changes induced by custom and conventional laser in situ keratomileusis after myopic ablation: retrospective chart reviewJ Cataract Refract Surg20103691550155520692569

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar