Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMoshirfar, Majid
dc.contributor.authorShah, Tirth
dc.contributor.authorSkanchy, David
dc.contributor.authorLinn, Steven
dc.contributor.authorKang, Paul
dc.contributor.authorDurrie, Daniel
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-23T00:48:45Z
dc.date.available2017-02-23T00:48:45Z
dc.date.issued2017-01
dc.identifier.citationComparison and analysis of FDA reported visual outcomes of the three latest platforms for LASIK: wavefront guided Visx iDesign, topography guided WaveLight Allegro Contoura, and topography guided Nidek EC-5000 CATz 2017, Volume 11:135 Clinical Ophthalmologyen
dc.identifier.issn1177-5483
dc.identifier.doi10.2147/OPTH.S115270
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/622646
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare and analyze the differences in visual outcomes between Visx iDesign Advanced WaveScan Studio (TM) System, Alcon Wavelight Allegro Topolyzer and Nidek EC-5000 using Final Fit (TM) Custom Ablation Treatment Software from the submitted summary of safety and effectiveness of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data. Methods: In this retrospective comparative study, 334 eyes from Visx iDesign, 212 eyes from Alcon Contour, and 135 eyes from Nidek CATz platforms were analyzed for primary and secondary visual outcomes. These outcomes were compared via side-by-side graphical and tabular representation of the FDA data. Statistical significance was calculated when appropriate to assess differences. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 12 months was 20/19.25 +/- 8.76, 20/16.59 +/- 5.94, and 20/19.17 +/- 4.46 for Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. In at least 90% of treated eyes at 3 months and 12 months, all three lasers showed either no change or a gain of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). Mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 months showed a clinically significant increase of 41.3%, 25.1%, and 10.6% for eyes using Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. Photopic contrast sensitivity at 6 months showed a clinically significant increase of 19.2%, 31.9%, and 10.6% for eyes using Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. Conclusion: FDA data for the three platforms shows all three were excellent with respect to efficacy, safety, accuracy, and stability. However, there are some differences between the platforms with certain outcome measurements. Overall, patients using all three lasers showed significant improvements in primary and secondary visual outcomes after LASIK surgery.
dc.description.sponsorshipResearch to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY, USAen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherDOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTDen
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.dovepress.com/comparison-and-analysis-of-fda-reported-visual-outcomes-of-the-three-l-peer-reviewed-article-OPTHen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2017 Moshirfar et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
dc.subjectwavefront-guideden
dc.subjecttopography-guideden
dc.subjectLASIKen
dc.subjectwavefront optimizeden
dc.titleComparison and analysis of FDA reported visual outcomes of the three latest platforms for LASIK: wavefront guided Visx iDesign, topography guided WaveLight Allegro Contoura, and topography guided Nidek EC-5000 CATzen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Coll Med Phoenixen
dc.identifier.journalClinical Ophthalmologyen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
refterms.dateFOA2018-09-11T17:43:47Z
html.description.abstractPurpose: To compare and analyze the differences in visual outcomes between Visx iDesign Advanced WaveScan Studio (TM) System, Alcon Wavelight Allegro Topolyzer and Nidek EC-5000 using Final Fit (TM) Custom Ablation Treatment Software from the submitted summary of safety and effectiveness of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data. Methods: In this retrospective comparative study, 334 eyes from Visx iDesign, 212 eyes from Alcon Contour, and 135 eyes from Nidek CATz platforms were analyzed for primary and secondary visual outcomes. These outcomes were compared via side-by-side graphical and tabular representation of the FDA data. Statistical significance was calculated when appropriate to assess differences. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 12 months was 20/19.25 +/- 8.76, 20/16.59 +/- 5.94, and 20/19.17 +/- 4.46 for Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. In at least 90% of treated eyes at 3 months and 12 months, all three lasers showed either no change or a gain of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). Mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 months showed a clinically significant increase of 41.3%, 25.1%, and 10.6% for eyes using Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. Photopic contrast sensitivity at 6 months showed a clinically significant increase of 19.2%, 31.9%, and 10.6% for eyes using Visx iDesign, Alcon Contoura, and Nidek CATz, respectively. Conclusion: FDA data for the three platforms shows all three were excellent with respect to efficacy, safety, accuracy, and stability. However, there are some differences between the platforms with certain outcome measurements. Overall, patients using all three lasers showed significant improvements in primary and secondary visual outcomes after LASIK surgery.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
OPTH-115270-comparison-and-ana ...
Size:
1023.Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Published Version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright © 2017 Moshirfar et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright © 2017 Moshirfar et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.