角膜地形图引导与波前像差优化的飞秒LASIK术后角膜地形图比较

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2016.07.004

摘要
图/表
参考文献(0)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF 4996KB HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的评估角膜地形图引导的飞秒激光制瓣的准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术（FS-LASIK）与波前像差优化的FS-LASIK治疗近视散光术后临床效果、角膜地形图的变化及角膜像差的差异。方法前瞻性队列研究。将44例（87眼）近视散光患者根据接受的手术方式不同分成2组：Topography组（角膜地形图引导的个性化FS-LASIK，22例44眼）及Wavefront组（波前像差优化的FS-LASIK，22例43眼）。Topography组应用Wavelight Topolyzer角膜地形图仪采集角膜地形图数据。术后6个月，对2组视力、屈光度、角膜不规则指数、激光切削的居中性及角膜波前像差采用独立样本t检验进行比较。结果术后6个月，2组间裸眼视力（UCVA）及最佳矫正视力（BCVA）的差异均无统计学意义，无一例出现术后BCVA低于术前。术后2组间球镜度、柱镜度及等效球镜度差异亦无统计学意义。Topography组患者术后角膜表面变异指数（ISV）（39.9±13.0）低于Wavefront组（44.9±12.2），差异有统计学意义（t=-2.296，P<0.05），2组术后ISV均较术前增加（t=5.216、7.870，P<0.05）。Topography组患者术后平均切削偏心量[（0.24±0.29）mm]低于Wavefront组[（0.29±0.31）mm]，但2组间差异无统计学意义（t=-1.005，P>0.05）。术后6个月，Topography组角膜水平彗差（Z31）及球差（Z40）[（-0.166±0.357）μm和（0.390±0.263）μm]均低于Wavefront组[（-0.362±0.353）μm和（0.486±0.164）μm]，差异有统计学意义（t=2.325、-2.096，P<0.05）。结论角膜地形图引导的FS-LASIK与波前像差优化的FS-LASIK相比较同样安全有效，但前者术后角膜表面规则性更好，引入的角膜高阶像差更低。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	张丽
	周跃华
	徐雯
	李颖
	王玥
	张秋露
	柳静
	胡雅斌

关键词 ：角膜地形图, 角膜磨镶术, 激光原位, 波前像差, 飞秒激光

Abstract：Objective To compare the outcomes of topography-guided LASIK and wavefront-optimized LASIK in eyes of patients undergoing femtosecond laser LASIK (FS-LASIK) for myopia with astigmatism. Methods In this prospective clinical study, 44 eyes of 22 patients underwent topography-guided LASIK (topography group) and 43 eyes of 22 patients underwent wavefront-optimized LASIK (wavefront group). The topography treatment was based on data generated by a networked diagnostic device: Wavelight Topolyzer. Visual acuity, refractive error, the index of corneal surface variance (ISV), corneal wavefront aberrations and ablation decentration were evaluated 6 months postoperatively. Data were analyzed using independent t test. Results Six months postoperatively, there were no significant differences in UCVA or BCVA (t=-1.553, -1.570, P>0.05) between the groups. No eyes lost a line of BCVA in either group. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative average sphere, cylinder refraction or spherical equivalent (SE) between the groups. The postoperative value of ISV increased compared to baseline for both groups (t=5.216, 7.870, P＜0.05). The mean postoperative ISV in the topography group (39.9±13.0) was significantly lower than that in the wavefront group (44.9±12.2) (t=-2.296, P<0.05). The postoperative mean decentration in the topography group (0.24±0.29 mm) was less than that in the wavefront group (0.29±0.31 mm), but the difference was not statistically significant (t=-1.005, P>0.05). There were significant differences in postoperative coma aberrations (Z31) [-0.166±0.357 μm vs. -0.362±0.353 μm, t=2.325, P<0.05] and spherical aberrations (Z40) [0.390±0.263 μm vs. 0.486±0.164 μm, t=-2.096, P<0.05] between the two groups． Conclusion Both topography-guided ablation and wavefront-optimized ablation provide good visual acuity and refractive results, but the former treatment results in a better index of corneal surface variance and induces fewer corneal aberrations.

Key words： Topography Keratomileusis, laser in situ Wavefront aberration Femtosecond laser

通讯作者: 周跃华，Email：yh0220@yahoo.com

引用本文:

张丽,周跃华,徐雯,李颖,王玥,张秋露,柳静,胡雅斌. 角膜地形图引导与波前像差优化的飞秒LASIK术后角膜地形图比较[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2016, 18(7): 399-403. Zhang Li, Zhou Yuehua, Xu Wen, Li Ying, Wang Yue, Zhang Qiulu, Liu Jing, Hu Yabin. Comparison of corneal topography after topography-guided FS-LASIK and wavefront-optimized FS-LASIK. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2016, 18(7): 399-403. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2016.07.004

链接本文:

https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2016.07.004 或 https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/Y2016/V18/I7/399

[1]	Kymionis GD, Panagopoulou SI, Aslanides IM, et al． Topographically surported　customized ablation for the management of decentered laser in situ keratomileusis[J]. Am J Ophthalmol,2004,137(5):806-811. DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2003.11.077.
[2]	Falavarjani KG, Hashemi M, Modarres M, et al. Topography-guided vswavefront optimized surface ablation for myopia using the wavelight platform: a contra-lateral eye study[J]. J Refract Surg,2011,27(1):13-17. DOI:10.3928/1081597X-20100310-02.
[3]	Waring G, Dougherty PJ, Chayet A, et al. Topographically guided lasik for　myopia using the nidek cxii customized aspheric treatment zone (catz)[J]. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc,2007,105:240-248.
[4]	Kanjani N, Jacob S, Agarwal A, et al. Wavefront- and topography-guided ablation in myopic eyes using Zyoptix[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg,2004,30(2):398-402. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrs.2003. 07.004.
[5]	Pop M, Bains HS. Clinical outcomes of CATz versus OPDCAT[J]. J Refract Surg,2005,21(5 Suppl):S636-639.
[6]	Kermani O, Schmiedt K, Oberheide U, et al. Topographicand Wavefront-guided customized ablations with the NIDEKEC 5000CXII in LASIK for myopia[J]. J Refract Surg,2006,22(8):754-763.
[7]	He R, Qu M, Yu S. Comparison of NIDEK CAT zwavefrontguided LASIK to traditional LASIK with the NIDEK CXII excimer laser in myopia[J]. J Refract Surg,2005,21(5 Suppl):S646-649.
[8]	Farooqui MA, Al-Muammar AR. Topography-guided CATz versus conventional LASIK for myopia with the NIDEK EC-5000: a bilateral eye study[J]. J Refract Surg,2006,22(8):741-745.
[9]	El Awady HE, Ghanem AA, Saleh SM. wavefront-optimized ablation versus topography-guided customized ablation in myopic lasik: comparative study of higher order aberrations[J]. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging,2011,42(4):314-320. DOI:10.3928/15428877-20110421-01.
[10]	Uozato H, Guyton DL. Centering corneal surgical procedures[J].Am J Ophthalmol,1987,103(3 Pt 1):264-275.
[11]	Amano S, Tanaka S, Shimizu K. Topographical evaluation of centration　of excimer laser myopic photorefractive keratectomy[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg,1994,20(6):616-619.
[12]	Wei RH, Lim L, Chan WK, et a1． Higher order ocular aberrations in eyes with myopia in a Chinese population[J]． J Refract Surg,2006,22(7):695-702．