Comparison of the 1st Generation and 3rd Generation Wavefront-Guided LASIK for the Treatment of Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism

Figures & data

Table 1 Preoperative and One-Month Postoperative Outcomes

	CustomVue	iDesign 2.0	P value
Number of eyes (patients)^a	2145	2145
Age [years] Mean ± SD (Range)	28.66 ± 5.88 (18, 40)	28.78 ± 5.52 (18, 40)	0.33
Male/Female (percentage)	42.9%/57.1%	44.0%/56.0%	0.49
Preoperative
Sphere [D] Mean ± SD (Range)	−3.44 ± 1.95 (−10.25, −0.25)	−3.39 ± 1.97 (−10.00, −0.25)	0.48
Cylinder [D] Mean ± SD (Range)	−0.82 ± 0.79 (−5.50, 0.00)	−0.84 ± 0.71 (−5.50, 0.00)	0.34
MSE [D] Mean ± SD (Range)	−3.85 ± 1.99 (−11.25, −0.50)	−3.81 ± 2.02 (−10.50, −0.50)	0.61
Monocular CDVA [logMAR] Mean ± SD (Range)	−0.07 ± 0.05 (−0.18, 0.22)	−0.07 ± 0.05 (−0.18, 0.30)	0.53
One-month postoperative
Sphere [D] Mean ± SD (Range)	+0.09 ± 0.33 (−1.75, +2.75)	+0.28 ± 0.36 (−0.75, +3.50)	<0.01
Cylinder [D] Mean ± SD (Range)	−0.20 ± 0.26 (−1.75, 0.00)	−0.18 ± 0.24 (−1.75, 0.00)	0.006
MSE [D] Mean ± SD (Range)	−0.01 ± 0.33 (−2.00, +1.875)	0.19 ± 0.33 (−1.25, +3.25)	<0.01
Monocular UDVA [logMAR] Mean ± SD (Range)	−0.07 ± 0.09 (−0.3, 0.8)	−0.08 ± 0.07 (−0.18, 0.52)	<0.01
Binocular UDVA [logMAR] Mean ± SD (Range)	−0.10 ± 0.07 (−0.3, 0.22)	−0.12 ± 0.06 (−0.3, 0.22)	<0.01
Monocular CDVA [logMAR] Mean ± SD (Range)	−0.09 ± 0.06 (−0.3, 0.8)	−0.09 ± 0.06 (−0.3, 0.3)	0.06

Notes: ^aSphere, Cylinder, MSE, monocular UDVA and CDVA analysis was performed based on one random eye of each patient (one eye per patient).

Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; D, diopter; logMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; MSE, manifest spherical equivalent; UDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA, corrected distance visual acuity.

Figure 1 Cumulative monocular (A) and binocular (B) uncorrected distance visual acuity. (VA – visual acuity).

Figure 2 The difference between preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA).

Figure 3 The difference between preoperative and postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA).

Figure 4 Attempted versus achieved correction of manifest spherical equivalent. (A) 1st generation treatment, (B) 3rd generation treatment.

Figure 5 The distribution of postoperative manifest spherical equivalent (MSE).

Figure 6 The distribution of postoperative residual refractive astigmatism (absolute values).

Figure 7 The scattergram of target induced (TIA) versus surgically induced (SIA) astigmatism vector. (A) 1st generation treatment, (B) 3rd generation treatment.

Figure 8 The distribution of angle of error (cc/wise – counterclockwise, c/wise – clockwise). (A) 1st generation treatment, (B) 3rd generation treatment.

Table 2 Satisfaction and Visual Phenomena

Thinking about your vision during the last week, how satisfied are you with your vision? (without the use of glasses or contact lenses)?
	Very Satisfied	Satisfied		Neither	Dissatisfied		Very Dissatisfied	P value
CustomVue	58.5%	34.4%		3.1%	3.4%		0.7%	<0.01
iDesign 2.0	71.8%	25.5%		1.5%	1.0%		0.2%
Think about your vision during the last week. Please rate the degree of difficulty you experienced with each of the visual symptoms/dry eyes. (Measured on discrete scale from 1=no difficulty to 7=severe difficulty).
	No or little difficulty (score 1 and 2)		Moderate difficulty (score 3.4, and 5)			Severe difficulty (score 5 and 6)		P value
Glare
CustomVue	72.6%		24.5%			2.8%		<0.01
iDesign 2.0	77.1%		20.8%			2.1%
Halo
CustomVue	74.9%		22.2%			2.8%		0.06
iDesign 2.0	77.9%		19.7%			2.3%
Starburst
CustomVue	73.6%		23.5%			2.9%		0.02
iDesign 2.0	76.8%		21.2%			2.0%
Ghosting/Double vision
CustomVue	89.7%		8.9%			1.4%		<0.01
iDesign 2.0	93.8%		5.9%			0.3%