Excimer laser refractive surgery : corneal wound ... - Helda - Helsinki.fi

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 Intended Refractive Correction 50 LASIK PRK EV showed no signi<strong>fi</strong>cant differences between PRK and LASIK (Fig. 3). 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 Error Vector Figure 2 Vector intended refraction correction scatterplot of PRK and LASIK showing similar values preoperatively between both procedures Figure 3 Error vector scatterplot showed a concentric cluster points around of the origin. LASIK PRK Yet, NEV graph showed that LASIK outcomes were more accurate than those for PRK (Fig. 4).
4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 Normalized Error Vector 51 LASIK PRK TEV showed that PRK had more under- and overcorrection than LASIK (Fig. 5). 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 Treatment Error Vector Figure 4 Normalized error vector scatterplot showing greater number of undercorrections (points at the right side of the vertical axis) and overcorrections (points at the left side of the vertical axis) after PRK than after LASIK. Figure 5 Treatment error vector scatterplot shows a greater number of points close to the origin point after LASIK than after PRK. PRK LASIK At 12 months, SIRC was 2.2±0.6 D for PRK and 2.3±0.5 D for LASIK, with a success index of astigmatism correction of 76% and 81% for PRK and LASIK respectively. In line with this result a small difference in correction ratio was found between PRK and LASIK. ER showed no signi<strong>fi</strong>cant differences between PRK and LASIK. EM at 12 months followup after PRK was 0.1±0.05 and after LASIK was 0.02±0.5. Statistically we found no differences between these parameters.
Page 1 and 2: Department of Ophthalmology Univers
Page 3 and 4: “When you want something, all the
Page 5 and 6: 3 AIMS OF THE STUDY 35 4 PATIENTS A
Page 7 and 8: STUDY V. PRK enhancement 58 7 SUMMA
Page 9 and 10: ABBREVIATIONS ArF Argon Fluoride AS
Page 11 and 12: ABSTRACT Although the first procedu
Page 13 and 14: 1 INTRODUCTION Refractive errors ha
Page 15 and 16: from anterior to posterior by the e
Page 17 and 18: et al. 1991, Gallar et al. 1993, Ta
Page 19 and 20: 2.3.2 Interaction of excimer laser
Page 21 and 22: at that time an extracorporeal trea
Page 23 and 24: Twelve to 24 hours after the onset
Page 25 and 26: 2.5 PREOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT OF REFR
Page 27 and 28: 2009, Stephenson et al. 1998) have
Page 29 and 30: 2.6.2 LASIK outcomes Although LASIK
Page 31 and 32: 2.7 PRK AND LASIK COMPLICATIONS Exc
Page 33 and 34: Dry eye Dry eye is one of the most
Page 35 and 36: 3 AIMS OF THE STUDY The general pur
Page 37 and 38: 4.2 PROTOCOLS The patients included
Page 39 and 40: 4.3.7 Study subjects 4.3.7.1 Study
Page 41 and 42: with the post hoc Dunn multiple com
Page 43 and 44: LASIK UCVA ≤0.0 was achieved post
Page 45 and 46: Table 6 Safety postoperative values
Page 47 and 48: 5.2 STUDIES III AND IV. Regular and
Page 49: Stability PRK Mean MRSE at six mont
Page 53 and 54: Safety Nine eyes out of eleven gain
Page 55 and 56: ±1.00 D of the intended correction
Page 57 and 58: a tendency to overcorrection in MRS
Page 59 and 60: 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The prese
Page 61 and 62: I am grateful to Ms. Elina Haapanie
Page 63 and 64: Azar DT and Farah SG (1998): Laser
Page 65 and 66: Donnenfeld ED, Ehrenhaus M, Solomon
Page 67 and 68: Hay ED (1979): Development of the v
Page 69 and 70: Kornmehl EW, Steinert RF and Puliaf
Page 71 and 72: McDonald MB, Kaufman HE, Frantz JM,
Page 73 and 74: Pallikaris IG, Kymionis GD, Panagop
Page 75 and 76: Sakimoto T, Rosenblatt MI and Azar
Page 77 and 78: Toda I, Asano-Kato N, Komai-Hori Y
Page 79: ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS 79

Excimer laser refractive surgery : corneal wound ... - Helda - Helsinki.fi

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?