opd aberrometric evaluation of two ablation algorithms: opa vs catz

OPD Aberrometric OPD Aberrometric Evaluation of Two Evaluation of Two

Ablation Algorithms: Ablation Algorithms: OPA vs CATzOPA vs CATz

Paolo Vinciguerra MD, Fabrizio I. Camesasca, MD, Paolo Vinciguerra MD, Fabrizio I. Camesasca, MD,

Silvia Trazza, OrthoptistSilvia Trazza, Orthoptist

The authors have no financial interest The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this posterin the subject matter of this poster

Istituto Clinico HumanitasIstituto Clinico HumanitasMilano - ItalyMilano - Italy

info@vincieye.it

Ablation Algorhitms Ablation Algorhitms and Aberrationsand Aberrations

The quest for the best ablation profile in

surface excimer laser surgery

may be helped by appropriate

aberrometric analysis.

We used aberrometry to evaluate two different

ablation profiles provided by the Final Fit

software for the

NIDEK EC 5000 excimer laser.

Materials And Materials And MethodsMethods

• Four patients (mean age 31 ± 3 yrs) • Bilateral LASEK surgery for myopia• Evaluated preoperatively with the Nidek OPD aberrometer• In each patient:

• the eye with less aberration and topographical surface irregularities received treatment with the new Optimized Profile Ablation algorithm (OPA, Group A)• the fellow eye was treated with the CATz algorithm (Group B).

• Preoperative refraction and visual acuity were comparable within the two Groups:

• 0.93 ±0.10 with -3.75 ±0.71 D SE vs • 0.93 ±0.10 with -4.25 ± 1.03

ResultsResults Six months postoperatively:

• visual acuity was comparable• Group A, 1.0 with -0.06 ± 0.13 D SE• Group B, 0.98 ± 0.05 with -0.47 ± 0.33 D SE

• corneal curvature gradient was comparable• Group A 12.90 ± 8.56 • Group B 12.49 ± 5.03

• Zernike aberrations were significatively higher with OPA than with CATz.

Preoperative

DOMINATING EYE,LESS IRREGULARITIES

EYE TO BE TREATED

0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @0

0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @175

Pt n°1, age 33 yrs

Preoperative

DOMINATING EYE,LESS ABERRATIONS

0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @0

0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @175EYE TO BE TREATED

PrEOPERATIVE

0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @175

0.8 -3.75sf -1.25 @0

EYE TO BE TREATED

3 mos after Surgery

Catz

vs

OPA

1.0 plano

1.0 plano

after Surgery (3 mos) wf /OPD /ho

1.0 plano

1.0 plano

Catz

vs

OPA

After Surgery (3 mos) internal OPD

1.0 plano

1.0 plano

Catz

vs

OPA

Catz

OPA

6 mos post1 mos post

1.0 plano

1.0 plano 1.0 plano

1.0 plano 14.82

15.64

CORNEAL CURVATURE GRADIENT MAP

Conclusions

Zernike Aberrations

UCVA & BSCVA POST SURGERY

OPA CATZ

Both ablation algorithms provided successful treatment, but aberrometric analysys failed to demonstrate any advantage of OPA vs CATz.